[Tax-chick]

"The Fury of the Northmen," by John Marsden, a very good treatment of the whole Scandinavian Migration period, does not even list 1013 as a significant date. Nor did the Vikings "conquer England" at any point, since there was no "England" to conquer, only a group of warring kingdoms of various ethnic backgrounds.

[tjwmason]

Nor did the Vikings "conquer England" at any point, since there was no "England" to conquer, only a group of warring kingdoms of various ethnic backgrounds.

England is merely the land of the Angles (though, naturally I prefer Pope Gregory's pun), history generally considers King Egbert to be the first 'King of All England' following his defeat of Beornwulf of Mercia in 825, he was proclaimed Bretwalda (ruler of Britain) in 829. He was the grandfather of King Alfred the Great, who did bring a large element of unity to the country.

Obviously England was not as united then as it is now, but we were certainly way down the line in the creation of a single state. Remember that the Greece of antiquity was a set of warring city-states.

[Moose4]

Hey Tax-chick, it was good to see you and the Tax-chickadees at Matthews this weekend...spreading conservative Christian homeschool entropy in your wake. :)

Look at Scandinavia a thousand years after the heyday of the Vikings. Now they're the quintessential modern European socialist weenie countries...crushing taxation, cradle-to-grave welfare socialism, liberal sexual mores causing the breakdown of the family, and lax immigration policies that are leading them toward their own little Muslim intifadas. Where's the heirs to the Vikings when you really need them?

}:-)4

[FourPeas]

since there was no "England"

Actually there was an England, Egbert took the throne of Wessex in 802 and subsequently conquered some of the other seven kingdoms called the land he ruled over "England".

[Finalapproach29er]

Norman Conquest-1066 A.D.