Talk:History of Scandinavia/Archive 1

Archive 1

See Also

I noticed non-strict Scandinavian definitions are in there. Should others be added as well. Such as, Rus' (people), History of the Faroe Islands, History of England#The Anglo-Saxon Conquest, etc? 12.220.47.145 28 June 2005 15:09 (UTC)

I think we should stick to the strict Scandinavian definition (Denmark, Norway & Sweden), because these three countries has so much common history and it's an article over the history of Scandinavia. This is basically an overview article of the history, and it would be so easy to be sidetracked by the inclusion of countries like Finland and Iceland.

I agree with the commentary above. There is a reason why something is called Scandinavia in the first place and not the Nordic countries. The scandinavian countries is strictly speaking the three kingdoms Denmark, Norway and Sweden (former members of the Calmar Union). It would, however be useful to organize their common history in a subchapter under the history of the Nordic countries.--Tubak (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Iron Age.

Arcticle is inaccurate in quoted part: "The Viking Age is the name of the period between 793 A.D and 1066 A.D in Scandinavia. This corresponds to the latter half of the early Iron Age." There is inaccuracy with several others sources in timing. Actualy it is latter half of the Germanic Iron Age, not early. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.32.96.151 (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bronze Age Climate

The article states: "The Nordic Bronze Age was characterized by a warm climate (which is compared to that of the Mediterranean) [...]" I seriously doubt that statement! 4000 years ago was the end of the climate optimum of the Holocene in Europe. But at no place average temperatures were more than 4° C higher than they are today. Malmö (as an average Scandinavian location) and Rome (as an average Mediterranean location) lie 9-10° C apart during every part of the year.

If not really verified by several serious scientific sources, I have to assume, that the statement in the article is very much overexaggerated or - to be more precise - just plainly wrong.

There are no dates posted in the bronze age section as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.168.122.82 (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Christinization

We have a section titled Christinization but this was to Roman Catholicism. Later Scandinavia converted to Protestantism. Should this be under the Christinization section? Falphin 29 June 2005 14:50 (UTC)

No, because that happened over 500 years later and is known as the reformation. The christinization could however be covered under the Viking Age-section. --Maitch 29 June 2005 15:03 (UTC)

Too many sections

Wouldn't it be better if we combined sections such as the Viking Age and Christinization, and the World Wars? And perhaps have sections entitled 1700's in Scandinavia etc. Falphin 29 June 2005 14:54 (UTC)

• I should clarify, too many heading sections. 13 seems a lot for such a short article. But maybe if the sections I've added it will look better. Falphin 29 June 2005 15:02 (UTC)

I think you could easily drop the World Wars as seperate sections. Not much happened in the 20. century that could be defined as common scandinavian history. I don't like the century titles, but it could be used as work titles. --Maitch 29 June 2005 15:12 (UTC)

Ok, and I don't intend unless someone else does having info directly under the Century titles just under the sub-sections. Otherwise the article will be cluttered . Falphin 29 June 2005 15:15 (UTC)

Colonialism

Should colonialism be mentioned and if so, where? I don't believe Norway was involved much but Denmark and Sweden both had colonies. Falphin 29 June 2005 15:35 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll work on this when I have a moment, though obviously it'd be great if anyone can beat me to it! Alarichall (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence

"Scandinavia has been settled since the last ice age..."

So has pretty much everywhere else on the planet. What this needs to say is Scandinavia was settled during or just after the last ice age or "at the end of the last ice age."

"Since" isn't a time; it could mean, "it was settled in 1946..." because 1946 is some time after (since) the ice age.

Not trying to split hairs, the lead sentence confused me.

DavidH 1 July 2005 05:51 (UTC)

Help! Organic?

Throughout heavily wooded Scandinavia, there was little need to build tools out of organic components. Consequently, little evidence remains of the Scandinavia of the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, or the Iron Age except limited numbers of tools created from stone, bronze, and iron, some jewelry and ornaments, and stone burial cairns.

I couldn't see how the second sentence followed the first, so I changed 'organic' to 'mineral', but I'm still not sure what the article is trying to say here. Please help. --Heron 2 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)

• I think the original author was saying that there was no need to use metal implements as there was such a high amount of available lumber; consequently, few tools have survived. I missed on that when I was re-editing. I think your substitute makes the section much more comprehendible. Elefuntboy 2 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)

World War II

I've done a substantial reforming of the World War II section. However, I now fear that it may be too long. Can others look at it and shorten if necessary? Superm401 | Talk July 3, 2005 15:43 (UTC)

The article claimes Swedish aid to Finland during the Winter War was ‘minor’. I think it is safe to say this is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ystad (talk • contribs) 22:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed minor to notable. --Hamarainen (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice article!

Good work; this is a really nice article! :). Thue | talk 18:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It is so nice to see a good collaboration come together like this one did. Elefuntboy 02:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Indian theory about Scandinavia

Thakur Deshraj has mentioned in his book on History of Jats “Jat Itihas” (Hindi) (1934) that the country Assyria gets its name from Asiagh gotra Jats. The origin of word Asiagh is from Sanskrit word ‘Asi’ meaning sword. According to Kautilya the people who depended on ‘Asi’ (sword) for their living were known as Asiagh. The Asiaghs moved from Asirgarh in Malwa to Europe. Those who settled in Jangladesh were called Asiagh and those who moved to Scandinavia were known as Asi. Jats entered Scandinavia around 500 BCE and their leader was Odin. James Tod considers Odin to be derived from Buddha or Bodan. The Asi Jats founded Jutland as their homeland in Scandinavia. The religious book of Scandinavia ‘Edda’ mentions that the ancient inhabitants of Scandinavia were Jats or Jits who were Aryans known as Asi people and came to this land from Asirgarh. Asirgarh is a site of an ancient fort situated in Burhanpur district of Malwa region in Madhya Pradesh, India. Thakur Deshraj further quotes Scandinavian writer Mr Count Johnsturn who says that Scandinavians came from India. According to James Tod Scandinavia is derived from Sanskrit word ‘Skandhnabh’ which was the name of a Rishi.burdak 10:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review invitation

Greetings.

There is a peer review started on Wikipedia:Peer review/Viking/archive1 and any interested party is invited to take part in reviewing the article. If you know the history of scandinavia, then please stop by and help the peer review of the artile Viking

Thank you for your time. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 22:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources?

You'll have to forgive me, I've never done this before. I came to this page looking for sources on the history of Scandanavia for my own personal reading, as Wikipedia has always been a good place forme to start with such things before. But I couldn't help but notice a lack of sources on this article. Anyone know of some that might be added in to verify the article, and for my reading pleasure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.79.13.15 (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sami people?

I find it strange that an article about the history of Scandinavia doesn't have at least one mention of the sami people --85.113.164.96 (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed this too, with considerable alarm! I'll try and improve things when I have a chance. Alarichall (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I have started a small section on the sami, but really it should be incorporated in the intro. Please help! Ida Tolgensbakk (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Scandinavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103214722/http://www.nationalbanken.dk/dnuk/hist.nsf/side/From_silver_standard_to_gold_standard to http://www.nationalbanken.dk/dnuk/hist.nsf/side/From_silver_standard_to_gold_standard

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)