Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: SunkenCiv

My impression is the Vikings made much less of an impact on Ireland than Britain. Less land occupied for a much shorter time. I suppose Britain was much more lucrative looting.


19 posted on 08/05/2014 1:06:00 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: colorado tanker
My impression is the Vikings made much less of an impact on Ireland than Britain. Less land occupied for a much shorter time. I suppose Britain was much more lucrative looting.


It was a shorter boat trip to Yorkshire - their capital when they ruled N. England...:^)

20 posted on 08/05/2014 6:27:01 PM PDT by az_gila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: colorado tanker

Ireland’s monasteries were tremendously rich pickings for the Vikings. I’d be surprised if they wanted to expend the effort to occupy anything past the coasts and estuaries. In Britain their cousins the Jutes had made major settlements over the post-Roman centuries, as had their more distant cousins the Angles and Saxons. That hadn’t happened in Ireland. The area of East Anglia was quite low down, and the river estuaries were broader and reached further inland during the medieval warming period. Geographically they were of course closer. Another thing that went on in Ireland, which I don’t recall from British middle ages, was seagoing warfare between Viking chieftains. The intermarriage was pretty extensive, based on the first names and surnames, and marital alliances between petty Viking kings and petty Irish kings were commonplace. It’s not necessarily something the Irish crow about though. :’)


21 posted on 08/08/2014 6:16:56 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson