Vikinzi

[Ortar]

Репутација Викинга, тих срчаних и неустрашивих ратника, којима је мало ко у борби могао парирати, је више него оправдана. Имали су сијасет забиљежених битака, бјеше и пораза, који су били посљедица ипак више њихове малобројности, како су извори хронике њихових непријатеља, нема разлога сумњати у ту репутацију.

Dajte velike bitke i malobrojnost.
Evo krenite od Balkana i 1081 kada su izduvali od Vizantije kod Draca. Pri cemu vec tesko govoriti u 11. veku o onim Vikinzima jer su tada vec naucili dosta od civilizovanih drzava. Uostalom, uzimanje juga Italija je posledica Vakuma nastalog nakon arapa.
Ja zelim da cujem na vrhuncu njihovih aktivnosti kada su bili Vikinzi a ne Normani ili neki drugi narod, poput Rusa, u koji su se asimilovali i naucili civilizaciji.

 

[Ortar]

Uostalom, njihov dolazak, bolje reci prolazak, kroz jug Italije je posledica arapskog vakuma tj. saracena koji su pustosili te krajeve te je bio brisan prostor, sto bi se reklo.

 

['Clint']

Drobnjaci imaju tu Skandinavsku genetiku a jug Italije prilicno egzoticnu koja je najslicnija Turcima.. zapanjujuce je da su Svedjani, Norvezani i Danci od tako ratnickog naroda danas postali toliki liberali i kukavice da imaju no go zone po gradovima zbog bliskoistocnih i africkih dosljaka ali isto tako i socijalno najuredjenije drzave.

 

[Ortar]

To sto imaju drobnjaci ne znaci da su oni dosli sa juga Italije. Moguce da su dosli iz Luzice kao deo prvih Srba na Balkan posto je medju Vendima bili Vikinga.

 

[veliki krang]

Ima li slovenska imena i koristili slovenski jezik. Toliko o toj eliti. Oni to nisu osvojili vec su pozvani da bi se zaustavio rat.
Ja samo znam da su nasli da Rjurik ima N haplogrupu sto nije vikinska haplogrupa vec finskih naroda.

Kasnije, tek kasnije. Ta elita je pozvana od strane tih istih slovenskih plemena da im organizuje državu, jer je sami nisu imali. A što se tiče Rurika, pronađi ime koje se završava sa "rik", a da nije germanskog porekla.

 

[Ortar]

Nisu samo sloveni, vec i ugro-finska plemena i pozvani su da bi se zaustavio rat.
Samo znam da Vikinzi nisu nosili N po muskoj liniji.

 

[Khal Drogo]

Dajte velike bitke i malobrojnost.
Evo krenite od Balkana i 1081 kada su izduvali od Vizantije kod Draca.

Ух, кад тако у једној реченици напишеш "дајте све те битке рецимо Руса, или Римљана...." онда не видим ту мјеста разборитој расправи.
Наравно да је било сијасет битака Викинга (Нормана) и великих побједа.
На острву, Енглеској, имали су већ од краја IX викека када пљачкашки походи бивају замијењени бројнијим експедицијама бројне велике битке и побједе, неке ћу у каснијим постовима поменути, а довољно је да је дански краљ Кнут 1013.године довршио освајање читаве Енглеске.
И опсада Париза око 845.године иако пљачкаши поход бјеше успјешна. Овдје је важно да је писани траг остао кроз франачке и англосаксонске хронике, значи рукописе њихових непријатеља.

Када је у питању Сицилија, свакако посебно мјесто заузима битка код Керамија (овдје) јуна 1063.године

Spojler: Battle of Cerami

Battle of Cerami

The Battle of Cerami was fought in June 1063 and was one of the most significant battles in the Norman conquest of Sicily, 1060–1091. The battle was fought between a Norman expeditionary force and a Muslim alliance of Sicilian and Zirid troops. The Normans fought under the command of Roger de Hauteville, the youngest son of Tancred of Hauteville and brother of Robert Guiscard. The Muslim alliance consisted of the native Sicilian Muslims under the Kalbid ruling class of Palermo, led by Ibn al-Hawas, and Zirid reinforcements from North Africa led by the two princes, Ayyub and 'Ali.[2] The battle was a resounding Norman victory that utterly routed the opposing force, causing divisions amongst the Muslim aristocracy which ultimately paved the way for the eventual capture of the Sicilian capital, Palermo, by the Normans and subsequently the rest of the island.
The initial battle took place at the hilltop town of Cerami, around five miles to the west of the Norman stronghold at Troina. However the main battle was joined in the valley just to the south. By all accounts the Normans, numbering 136 knights with probably only slightly more infantry,[3] were heavily outnumbered by their Muslim opponents who some sources claim were as many as 50,000 strong.[1] The best surviving source of information for the battle is found in Geoffrey of Malaterra's De rebus gestis Rogerii Calabriae et Siciliae comitis et Roberti Guiscardi Ducis fratris eius.[4]

Prelude
Norman invasion
Roger de Hauteville had arrived in Italy sometime after the Battle of Civitate in 1053, which had seen his brother Robert Guiscard catapulted into the spotlight. In the ensuing years Robert had inherited his brother Humphrey de Hauteville's lands and titles in southern Italy. As a result of increasing pressure exerted on the papacy by the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV, during the Investiture Contest, Pope Nicholas II was looking for allies. Despite the Norman victory against, and subsequent incarceration of, his predecessor Pope Leo IX in 1053 at Civitate, Nicholas concluded the Synod of Melfi in 1059 by formally acknowledging the Norman possessions in southern Italy and granting Robert the title of Duke of Apulia and Calabria, and in the future, of Sicily.[5] Robert did not have to wait long for an opportunity to invade Sicily.

By this time, Roger had harangued control of Calabria from Robert in recognition for Roger's help against the rebellious Norman lords there and held it as his own fief, but owing homage to Robert as his duke. In 1060, the Sicilian Emir of Syracuse, Ibn al-Timnah, landed at Reggio in Calabria to secure the aid of the Normans against his rival emir, Ibn al-Hawas. He promised that, in return for the Normans' military assistance, al-Timnah would acknowledge their claim over the entire island. Roger immediately began preparing to make a foray across the straits of Messina. After one reconnaissance raid in 1060 and one abortive attempt in early 1061, Roger captured Messina ahead of a Norman army under the command of Robert Guiscard.[6]

The population the Val Demone region of Sicily, of which Messina forms the northeast corner, was largely made up of Greek-speaking Christians despite two centuries of Islamic rule and they welcomed the Normans as liberators. With Messina fortified and garrisoned, Robert and Roger were free to march inland. Conquering as they went, the Norman army quickly secured Rometta, Frazzano, Centuripe and Paternò. They defeated a sizeable force belonging to Ibn al-Hawas as his fortress at Enna (or Castrogiovanni) but were ill-prepared to maintain a siege of its citadel for long. With the campaigning season drawing to a close, Robert abandoned the siege and returned to Italy with Roger.[7] Roger however, did not remain there long and, returning with a small force, captured Troina, where he spent Christmas 1061. The following year, while his brother was tied down with Apulian rebellions and Byzantine resurgences, Roger plundered all the way to Agrigento and solidified Norman holdings in the Val Demone.[8] However, as 1062 drew to a close, Ibn al-Hawas launched a counterattack which besieged Roger's wife and a handful of retainers in Troina's citadel. Roger returned from plundering and his relief force broke through the siege lines and managed to occupy the citadel, but the Normans found themselves besieged by the Muslims as well as the Greek townsfolk, who were tired with the harsh Norman rule. Roger's second Christmas in Troina was markedly less comfortable.[9]

Early in 1063, Roger broke the siege of Troina and resumed his harrying of the Sicilian interior. Unbeknown to him, however, Ibn al-Hawas had signed an alliance with the Zirid emir of Ifriqiya, Tamim ibn al-Mu'izz, and had received substantial reinforcements of Zirid soldiers led by his sons, princes Ayyub and 'Ali. Ibn al-Hawas struck eastwards at the head of this large army towards Roger's position at Troina with a single-minded ambition, to destroy the Norman presence on the island.[2]

Army composition
Normans
Roger's force consisted of 136 mounted Norman knights who were highly disciplined and well versed in the Frankish tactic of the heavy cavalry charge. The Norman force would also have contained an infantry element but, owing to the Roger's chronic shortage of manpower, this almost certainly did not exceed approximately 150 troops and would have consisted of Norman as well as Calabrian Lombard sergeants and dismounted knights and squires.

Norman notables at the battle included Roger I of Sicily, Serlo II of Hauteville, Roussel de Bailleul and Arisgot du Pucheuil.[10] Roger, although the supreme commander of the army, would also have led a personal retinue of several dozen knights and their entourages. His nephew Serlo also commanded a cadre of around 30 knights, as would have other lords, and to a lesser extent other knights, such as Roussel de Bailleul and Arisgot du Pucheuil.

Muslim alliance
We know relatively little about the composition of the Kalbid/Zirid army at Cerami. The majority of troops were of Berber origin and were under the command of the Zirid princes. Ibn al-Hawas commanded a sizeable force himself consisting of troops levied mainly from Palermo and Agrigento. The Zirid forces, being mostly Berber tribesmen, were many in number but lacked professionalism and discipline, unlike the Palermitans. This would later cause significant rifts between the two allies as increased Zirid control in Palermo and their successive defeats at the hands of Normans led to many Sicilians resenting their interference.

Initial moves
Siege of Cerami
Upon discovering the proximity of the Muslim army, Roger immediately sent Serlo and his knights as an advance force to secure the strategically vital position offered by Cerami. When the large Muslim vanguard drew up before the town, they found the gates shut and barred against them; Serlo's knights spread thinly across the walls. Ibn al-Hawas ordered the vanguard to scale the walls and take the town but all efforts were repulsed and met with failure. Some time afterwards, probably around an hour (but sometimes stated to be as long as 3 days)[11] later, and once the Muslim force had arrived in full, Roger's main force entered the valley from the East and drew up into battle order.

Main action
Unfortunately nothing is known of the disposition of the Muslim force at the battle, however it is likely that the vanguard was made up of the Muslim cavalry contingent which dismounted in order to besiege the town. Roger's force, however, was drawn up into a tight body of men forming a vanguard and a rearguard, in a similar fashion to the Norman tactic used at Castrogiovanni in 1061.[3]

The Muslim force, tired of its fruitless efforts to capture Cerami, abandoned the siege of the town and drew up facing them. It is unclear who attacked first, but a hesitant Roger is recorded as having led an early cavalry charge which failed to break the Muslim lines. The Muslim forces then counterattacked in force however the Norman infantry held fast. It was at this point that St. George is said to have appeared amongst the Norman ranks, clad in shining white armour atop a white stallion and bearing the flag of St. George upon his lance (it has sometimes been portrayed as Roger who bore the flag of St. George). His speech inspired the Norman knights to charge the Muslim ranks again and, as they did, Serlo led a charge down from Cerami into the left flank of the Muslim force, cutting a bloody path towards his Norman compatriots.[1]

In the space of a few hours, the courage and determination of the Norman warriors in the face of such an overwhelming force had checked the Muslim onslaught. The surprise of the double charge proved too much for the undisciplined Zirid troops, who turned tail and fled, precipitating the rout of the remaining Kalbid troops. Before long the entire Muslim army had descended into a chaotic flight which the Norman cavalry, now regrouped, was able to exploit without mercy.

Aftermath
Malaterra records how the Norman cavalry chased the mass of routing troops all the way back to their camp, which they sacked and pillaged, killing all they found. He also claims that the Norman cavalry wanted to stop and rest their horses at the Muslim camp and enjoy the spoils of war, but Roger ordered the chase to be continued into the surrounding mountains so that he could capitalize on the route. After much time had passed, and the dust had settled, it is claimed that 35,000 Sicilians and Zirids had been killed.[1] Yet the Zirid Princes Ayyud and 'Ali, as well as the Palermitan Emir Ibn al-Hawas, escaped the battle, returning to Palermo with what remained of the Muslim army.

Roger, in the immediate aftermath, sent four camels as a gift to the Norman suzerain, the reigning Pope Alexander II, who in return blessed the expedition and offered certain spiritual indulgences, such as remission of sins, for those who had fought at the battle.[2] With his possessions secured, Roger took advantage of the lull in Muslim aggression to return to Calabria in order to quell rising rebellious sentiments among his vassals and to plan the capture of Palermo with his brother, the Duke of Apulia and Calabria, Robert Guiscard.

Consequences
The Normans were now the dominant force in Sicily. But that is not to say they were unchallenged. Their victory at Cerami had tipped the balance of power in their favour but they were still only in undisputed possession of the Val Demone region around Messina. The Val di Noto and Val di Mazara regions were still firmly in the hands of the Kalbids. However, the Norman victory had scattered Muslim hopes for a swift counter offensive which might expel the Normans from the island. The Kalbid Palermitans began to resent the interference of the Zirid rulers in Sicilian affairs and blamed them for the defeat at Cerami. This hostility increased gradually until the second humiliating defeat of the alliance by the Normans at Misilmeri in 1068, only 5 miles from Palermo. Riots broke out in Palermo and Ibn al-Hawas rose in revolt against the Zirid princes at Agrigento. Ibn al-Hawas was killed in the fighting but the Zirid prince Ayyub gathered what was left of his troops and returned to his North African domains.[12] Having lost the last vestiges of a field army, the remaining Sicilian troops could only watch from the walls of Palermo, waiting for the inevitable killing-blow. It came 3 years later, in 1071, after Robert Guiscard had added Bari, the final Byzantine foothold in Apulia, to his domains. A much larger force of Normans, as many as 3000, attacked the city by both land and sea, led by Robert Guiscard and Roger. After a siege lasting five months, the Palermitans capitulated on January 10, 1072.[13]

Although local resistance across the island lasted for a further 2 decades, this moment marked the turning point in the fortunes of the Normans. In gaining Palermo, the Normans were on their way to establishing what was arguably the most successful kingdom in Europe. It also marked a turning point in the ongoing Islamo-Christian conflict around the Mediterranean. The following decades would see increasing papal involvement prompting and sponsoring wars to recover once-Christian lands which had been lost to the Muslims as long ago as the 7th and 8th centuries. In 1095, 4 years after Sicily's conquest by the Normans definitively came to an end, Pope Urban II launched the First Crusade to recover the holy city of Jerusalem for the Christians, ushering in the next epoch of Mediterranean history.

Када је малобројнија норманска војска остварила бриљантну одлучујућу побједу над арапском армијом

The Battle of Cerami was fought in June 1063 and was one of the most significant battles in the Norman conquest of Sicily, 1060–1091. The battle was fought between a Norman expeditionary force and a Muslim alliance of Sicilian and Zirid troops. The Normans fought under the command of Roger de Hauteville, the youngest son of Tancred of Hauteville and brother of Robert Guiscard. The Muslim alliance consisted of the native Sicilian Muslims under the Kalbid ruling class of Palermo, led by Ibn al-Hawas, and Zirid reinforcements from North Africa led by the two princes, Ayyub and 'Ali.[2] The battle was a resounding Norman victory that utterly routed the opposing force, causing divisions amongst the Muslim aristocracy which ultimately paved the way for the eventual capture of the Sicilian capital, Palermo, by the Normans and subsequently the rest of the island.

The initial battle took place at the hilltop town of Cerami, around five miles to the west of the Norman stronghold at Troina. However the main battle was joined in the valley just to the south. By all accounts the Normans, numbering 136 knights with probably only slightly more infantry,[3] were heavily outnumbered by their Muslim opponents who some sources claim were as many as 50,000 strong.[1] The best surviving source of information for the battle is found in Geoffrey of Malaterra's De rebus gestis Rogerii Calabriae et Siciliae comitis et Roberti Guiscardi Ducis fratris eius.[4]

Иако код бројева има очигледних претјеривања, бјеше то импресивна побједа неколико пута малобројније норманске војске.

Што се тиче битке код Драча 18.октобра 1081.године (овдје)

Spojler: Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081)

Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081)

The Battle of Dyrrhachium took place on October 18, 1081 between the Byzantine Empire, led by the Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (r. 1081–1118), and the Normans of southern Italy under Robert Guiscard, Duke of Apulia and Calabria. The battle was fought outside the city of Dyrrhachium (present-day Durrës in Albania), the major Byzantine stronghold in the western Balkans, and ended in a Norman victory.

Following the Norman conquest of Byzantine Italy and Saracen Sicily, the Byzantine emperor, Michael VII Doukas (r. 1071–1078), betrothed his son to Robert Guiscard's daughter. When Michael was deposed, Robert took this as an excuse to invade the Byzantine Empire in 1081. His army laid siege to Dyrrhachium, but his fleet was defeated by the Venetians. On October 18, the Normans engaged a Byzantine army under Alexios I Komnenos outside Dyrrhachium. The battle began with the Byzantine right wing routing the Norman left wing, which broke and fled. Varangian mercenaries joined in the pursuit of the fleeing Normans, but became separated from the main force and were massacred. Norman knights in the centre attacked the Byzantine centre and routed it, causing the bulk of the Byzantine army to rout.

After this victory, the Normans took Dyrrhachium in February 1082 and advanced inland, capturing most of Macedonia and Thessaly. Robert was then forced to leave Greece to deal with an attack on his ally, the Pope, by the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV (r. 1084–1105). Robert left his son Bohemond in charge of the army in Greece. Bohemond was initially successful, defeating Alexios in several battles, but was defeated by Alexios outside Larissa in 1083. Forced to retreat to Italy, Bohemond lost all the territory gained by the Normans in the campaign. The Byzantine recovery began the Komnenian restoration.

Background
Further information: Norman conquest of southern Italy

The Normans first arrived in Southern Italy in 1015 from northern France and served local Lombard lords as mercenaries against the Byzantine Empire.[6] As they were paid with lands, soon they were powerful enough to challenge Papal authority; in 1054, they defeated the Pope at the Battle of Civitate, forcing him to acknowledge their authority.[7] In 1059, the Pope made Robert Guiscard, of the Hauteville family, Duke of Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily. However, most of Apulia and Calabria were in Byzantine hands, and Sicily was in Saracen hands.[8]

By 1071, Robert, together with his brother Roger, had taken over the last Byzantine stronghold in Italy, Bari. By the next year, they conquered all of Sicily, ending the Islamic Emirate of Sicily. In 1073, the Byzantine Emperor Michael VII sent an envoy to Robert offering the hand of his son Constantine to Robert's daughter Helena.[9] Guiscard accepted the offer and sent his daughter to Constantinople. However, in 1078, Michael was overthrown by Nicephorus Botaneiates, an event that destroyed any chances Helena had for the throne.[10] This gave Robert a motive to invade the empire claiming his daughter had been mistreated; however, his intervention was delayed by a revolt in Italy.[11]

Robert conscripted all men of a fighting age into the army, which he refitted.[12] Meanwhile, he sent an ambassador to the Byzantine court with orders to demand proper treatment for Helena and to win over the Domestic of the Schools, Alexios.[13] The results of these attempts remain unknown, but the ambassador fell under Alexios's charm and as he was returning to Italy, he heard of Alexios's successful coup against Botaneiates,[12] by which he became Alexios I Komnenos.

When the ambassador returned, he urged Robert to make peace, claiming that Alexios wanted nothing but friendship with the Normans. Robert had no intention of peace; he sent his son Bohemond with an advance force towards Greece and Bohemond landed at Aulon, with Robert following shortly after.[14]

Prelude
"Not being satisfied with the men who had served in his army from the beginning and had experience in battle, he (Robert Guiscard) formed a new army, made up of recruits without any consideration of age. From all quarters of Lombardy and Apulia he gathered them, over age and under age, pitiable objects who had never seen armour in their dreams, but then clad in breastplates and carrying shields, awkwardly drawing bows to which they were completely unused and following flat on the ground when they were allowed to march...Yet, however unused to soldiering they were, he (Robert Guiscard) trained them daily and hammered his recruits into a disciplined force. This was his business in Salerno before he arrived in Otranto."
Anna Comnena describing Robert Guiscard's conscription.[15]

The Norman fleet of 150 ships including 60 horse transports set off towards the Byzantine Empire at the end of May 1081. The army numbered 15,000 men, including about 1,300 Norman knights.[3] The fleet sailed to Avalona in Byzantine territory; they were joined by several ships from Ragusa, a republic in the Balkans who were enemies of the Byzantines.[16]

Robert soon left Avalona and sailed to the island of Corfu, which surrendered because of a small garrison. Having won a bridgehead and a clear path for reinforcements from Italy, he advanced on the city of Dyrrhachium, the capital and chief port of Illyria.[17] The city was well defended on a long, narrow peninsula running parallel to the coast, but separated by marshlands. Guiscard brought his army onto the peninsula and pitched camp outside the city walls.[18] However, as Robert's fleet sailed to Dyrrhachium, it was hit by a storm and lost several ships.[16]

Meanwhile, when Alexios heard that the Normans were preparing to invade Byzantine territory, he sent an ambassador to the Doge of Venice, Domenico Selvo, requesting aid and offering trading rights in return.[16] The Doge, alarmed by Norman control of the Strait of Otranto, took command of the Venetian fleet and sailed at once, surprising the Norman fleet under the command of Bohemond as night was falling. The Normans counter-attacked tenaciously, but their inexperience in naval combat betrayed them. The experienced Venetian navy attacked in a close formation known as "sea harbour" and together with their use of Greek fire "bombs", the Norman line scattered, and the Venetian fleet sailed into Dyrrhachium's harbour.[19]

Siege of Dyrrhachium


Coin of Robert Guiscard.

Robert was not discouraged by this naval defeat, and began his siege of Dyrrhachium. In command of the garrison at Dyrrhachium was the experienced general George Palaiologos, sent by Alexios with orders to hold out at all costs while Alexios himself mustered an army to relieve the city.[20]

Meanwhile, a Byzantine fleet arrived and – after joining with the Venetian fleet – attacked the Norman fleet, which was again routed. The garrison at Dyrrhachium managed to hold out all summer, despite Robert's catapults, ballistae and siege tower. The garrison made continuous sallies from the city; on one occasion, Palaiologos fought all day with an arrowhead in his skull. Another sally succeeded in destroying Robert's siege tower.[20]

Robert's camp was struck by disease; according to contemporary historian Anna Comnena up to 10,000 men died, including 500 knights.[21] Even so, the situation of the Dyrrhachium garrison grew desperate because of the effects of Norman siege weapons. Alexios learned of this while he was in Salonica with his army so he advanced in full force against the Normans. According to Comnena, Alexios had about 20,000 men; historian John Haldon puts the army's size between 18,000 and 20,000 men, while John Birkenmeier estimates it between 20–25,000 men. It consisted of Thracian and Macedonian tagmata, which numbered about 5,000 men; the elite excubitors and vestiaritai units, which numbered around 1,000 men; a force of Manichaeans which comprised 2,800 men, Thessalian cavalry, Balkan conscripts, Armenian infantry and other light troops. As well as the native troops, the Byzantines were joined by 2,000 Turkish and 1,000 Frankish mercenaries, about 1,000 Varangians and 7,000 Turkish auxiliaries sent by the Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm. Alexios also withdrew the tagmas from Heraclea Pontica and the remaining Byzantine holdings in Asia Minor and by doing so, he effectively left them to be overrun by the Turks.[19]

Battle
Initial moves

A manuscript depicting Alexios.

Alexios advanced from Salonica and pitched camp on the river Charzanes near Dyrrhachium on October 15.[22] He held a war council there and sought advice from his senior officers; among them was George Palaiologos, who had managed to sneak out of the city.[1] A majority of the senior officers, including Palaiologos, urged caution, noting that time was with the Emperor. Alexios, however, favoured an immediate assault, hoping to catch Guiscard's army from the rear, while they were still besieging the city. Alexios moved his army to the hills opposite the city, planning to attack the Normans the next day.[23]

Guiscard, however, had been informed of Alexios' arrival by his scouts and on the night of October 17, he moved his army from the peninsula to the mainland. Upon learning of Guiscard's move, Alexios revised his battle plan. He split his army into three divisions, with the left wing under the command of Gregory Pakourianos, the right wing under the command of Nikephoros Melissenos, and himself in command of the centre. Guiscard formed his battle line opposite Alexios's, with the right wing under the command of the Count of Giovinazzo, the left under Bohemond and Guiscard facing Alexios in the centre.[23]

The Varangians had been ordered to march just in front of the main line with a strong division of archers a little behind them.[1] The archers had been commanded to move in front of the Varangians and fire a volley before retreating behind them. The archers continued this tactic until the army neared contact.[23]

As the opposing armies closed in, Guiscard sent a detachment of cavalry positioned in the centre to feint an attack on the Byzantine positions. Guiscard hoped the feint would draw up the Varangians; however, this plan failed when the cavalry was forced back by the archers. The Norman right wing suddenly charged forward to the point where the Byzantine left and centre met, directing its attack against the Varangian left flank. The Varangians stood their ground while the Byzantine left, including some of Alexios' elite troops, attacked the Normans. The Norman formation disintegrated and the routed Normans fled towards the beach. There, according to Comnena, they were rallied by Guiscard's wife, Sikelgaita, described as "like another Pallas, if not a second Athena".[23]

Byzantine collapse

The Varangian guard.

In the meantime, the Byzantine right and centre had been engaging in skirmishes with the Normans opposite them. However, with the collapse of the Norman right, the knights were in danger of being outflanked. At this point, the Varangians (mainly Anglo-Saxons who had left England after the Norman Conquest) joined in the pursuit of the Norman right. With their massive battle axes, the Varangians attacked the Norman knights, who were driven away after their horses panicked. The Varangians soon became separated from the main force and exhausted so they were in no position to resist an assault. Guiscard sent a strong force of spearmen and crossbowmen against the Varangian flank and inflicted heavy casualties on them. The few remaining Varangians fled into the church of the Archangel Michael. The Normans immediately set the church on fire, and all Varangians perished in the blaze.[24]

Meanwhile, George Palaiologos sortied out of Dyrrhachium, but failed to save the situation. Alexios's ally, Serbian King Constantine Bodin stayed aside with his army, intending to await the outcome of the battle. When the Byzantines were defeated and started to flee, Bodin retreated with his army. The Turks who had been lent to him by the Seljuk Sultan Suleyman I followed Constantine's example.[5]

Deprived of his left wing (still in pursuit of the Norman right), Alexios was exposed in the centre. Guiscard sent his heavy cavalry against the Byzantine centre. They first routed the Byzantine skirmishers before breaking into small detachments and smashing into various points of the Byzantine line. This charge broke the Byzantine lines and caused them to rout. The imperial camp, which had been left unguarded, fell to the Normans.[24]

Alexios and his guards resisted as long as they could before retreating. As they retreated, Alexios was separated from his guard and was attacked by Norman soldiers. While escaping, he was wounded in his forehead and lost a lot of blood, but eventually made it back to Ohrid, where he regrouped his army.[24]

Aftermath
"Alexios was undoubtedly a good tactician, but he was badly let down by the undisciplined rush to pursue the beaten enemy wings, a cardinal sin in the Byzantine tactical manuals. He failed to take adequate account of the effectiveness of the Norman heavy cavalry charge, which punched through his lines with little resistance."
John Haldon's assessment of the battle.[25]

The battle was a heavy defeat for Alexios. Historian Jonathan Harris states that the defeat was "every bit as severe as that at Manzikert."[26] He lost about 5,000 of his men, including most of the Varangians. Norman losses are unknown, but John Haldon claims they are substantial as both wings broke and fled.[4] Historian Robert Holmes states: "The new knightly tactic of charging with the lance couched – tucked firmly under the arm to unite the impact of man and horse – proved a battle-winner."[27]

George Palaiologos had not been able to re-enter the city after the battle and left with the main force. The defense of the citadel was left to the Venetians, while the city itself was left to the Count of the Tent (or Byzantine provincial administrators) mobilizing from Arbanon (i.e., ἐξ Ἀρβάνων ὁρμωμένω Κομισκόρτη; the term Κομισκόρτη is short for κόμης της κόρτης meaning "Count of the Tent").[28][29]

In February 1082, Dyrrhachium fell after a Venetian or Amalfian citizen opened the gates to the Normans.[30] The Norman army proceeded to take most of northern Greece without facing much resistance. While Guiscard was in Kastoria, messengers arrived from Italy, bearing news that Apulia, Calabria, and Campania were in revolt. He also learned that the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV, was at the gates of Rome and besieging Pope Gregory VII, a Norman ally.[31] Alexios had negotiated with Henry and given him 360,000 gold pieces in return for an alliance. Henry responded by invading Italy and attacking the Pope. Guiscard rushed to Italy, leaving Bohemond in command of the army in Greece.[32]

Alexios, desperate for money, ordered the confiscation of all the church's treasure.[33] With this money, Alexios mustered an army near Thessalonica and went to fight Bohemond. However, Bohemond defeated Alexios in two battles: one near Arta and the other near Ioannina. This left Bohemond in control of Macedonia and nearly all of Thessaly.[34] Bohemond advanced with his army against the city of Larissa. Meanwhile, Alexios had mustered a new army and with 7,000 Seljuk Turks sent by the Sultan, he advanced on the Normans at Larissa and defeated them.[35] The demoralised and unpaid Norman army returned to the coast and sailed back to Italy.[36] Meanwhile, Alexios granted the Venetians a commercial colony in Constantinople, as well as exemption from trading duties in return for their renewed aid. They responded by recapturing Dyrrhachium and Corfu and returning them to the Byzantine Empire. These victories returned the Empire to its previous status quo and marked the beginning of the Komnenian restoration.[37]

Нешто си побркао. Бјеше то бриљантна побједа норманске војске над византијским снагама. Постоје различите процјене снага, но дефинитивно норманска војска бјеше малобројнија, како стоји и у енглеској википедији.
Занимљиво да је у току саме битке на византијској страни једино била успјешна варјашка гарда која је у једном моменту пробила линију противника, но то не бјеше довољно.
Ево једног документарца посвећеног тој бици;

Наредне године 1082. Роберт Гвискар се морао вратити у Италију због побуне у Апулији, Калабрији и Кампанији, цар Алексије је склопио савез са царсом Светог римског царства Хајнрихом IV (толико колико је у пракси имала важности велика шизма) и са Венецијом те ће наредних година уз помоћ моћних савезника повратити контролу над изгубљеним територијама.

 

[veliki krang]

Nisu samo sloveni, vec i ugro-finska plemena i pozvani su da bi se zaustavio rat.
Samo znam da Vikinzi nisu nosili N po muskoj liniji.

Zanimljivo je da su pozvani nakon neuspešnog pohoda na njihove teritorije, što znači da je ipak bilo nešto posebno u njima, čim ti zoveš da ti situaciju srede oni koje si prethodno oterao...

 

[veliki krang]

Dajte velike bitke i malobrojnost.
Evo krenite od Balkana i 1081 kada su izduvali od Vizantije kod Draca. Pri cemu vec tesko govoriti u 11. veku o onim Vikinzima jer su tada vec naucili dosta od civilizovanih drzava. Uostalom, uzimanje juga Italija je posledica Vakuma nastalog nakon arapa.
Ja zelim da cujem na vrhuncu njihovih aktivnosti kada su bili Vikinzi a ne Normani ili neki drugi narod, poput Rusa, u koji su se asimilovali i naucili civilizaciji.

Nisu mogli da se asimiluju u Ruse, jer su oni bili Rus'. Slovenska plemena koja su ih pozvala nisu imala nikakvo ime, ili makar nikakvo zabeleženo zajedničko ime, stoga se teško može govoriti o učenju civilizaciji ako su im ovi dali i ime i uredili državu...

 

[Ortar]

Imali su pljackaske pohode, to sam i napisao. Zaskoce kada nema odbrane i vojske pokupe i poharaju i pobegnu.
Eto, to su oni bili.
Kod Pariza su izgubili.

 

[veliki krang]

Imali su pljackaske pohode, to sam i napisao. Zaskoce kada nema odbrane i vojske pokupe i poharaju i pobegnu.
Eto, to su oni bili.
Kod Pariza su izgubili.

Kako je onda Knut Veliki postao kralj Engleske, tačnije Severnomorske imperije koja je obuhvatala i Dansku i Norvešku?

 

[Pantelić Nebojša]

Rjurik je po raznim genetskim ispitivanjima R1a, I2a i N.
Rjurik nije N hg, nego kao i obicno smradovi koriste lazi i podmetacine protiv slovena, jer se uvek podmece i uvek neke zloupotrebe protiv slovenskih naroda.
Ne znamo koje je hg Rjurik.
Ugro-finci nisu osnovali Rusiju.

 

[Ortar]

Kako je onda Knut Veliki postao kralj Engleske, tačnije Severnomorske imperije koja je obuhvatala i Dansku i Norvešku?

Pa i to napisah ranije.

Vikinzi su zestoko izvikani. Uglavnom su gubili bitke kada su nadju naspram organizovanih vojski osim po danasnjoj engleskoj ali ti anglo-sanksonci su mogli samo da su izivljavaju nad nesrecnim ircima i velsanima sto je pokazao i Vilijam Osvajac i svi pokusaju kasnije engleza da nesto rade na evropskom kontinentu su isto to pokazali. U kasnijim fazama su se naucili modernim vojnim strategijama i vojnoj taktici pa su dosli do Sicilije i Napulja ali su na Balkanu opet pukli od Vizantije. A i uspeh Vikinga po anglo-saksonskim kraljevinama u danasnjoj Engleskoj je posledica razjedinjenosti i sukoba izmedju samih anglo-saksonskih drzava.

Sada mi reci konkretno za Knuta: da li je vojno zauzeo London?

 

[veliki krang]

Pa i to napisah ranije.




Sada mi reci konkretno za Knuta: da li je vojno zauzeo London?

London je bio samo jedan od gradova u ono vreme, iako najvažnije trgovačko središte. Nije zauzimanje Londona značilo pad Engleske, nego zauzimanje utvrđenja koja su izgrađena upravo radi odbrane od Vikinga...

 

[Ortar]

Posredno si odgvoorio-nije. Iako je nekoliko puta pokusao i izgubio je.
Fama oko Vikinga je nastala zbog Engleza koji su bili napadani od strane Vikinga i cesto bili porazeni. Pa da ne bi ispali jadni oni rekose kako su Vikinzi mnogo mocni bili i sta ce onda nije cudno sto su i oni gubili. Kako je engleski jezik jako rasiren i svi prate serije poput hbo ili history mi dobijemo seriju "Vikinge".
Takvih grupa razbojnika je bilo sirom Evrope i Azije.

 

[veliki krang]

Posredno si odgvoorio-nije. Iako je nekoliko puta pokusao i izgubio je.
Fama oko Vikinga je nastala zbog Engleza koji su bili napadani od strane Vikinga i cesto bili porazeni. Pa da ne bi ispali jadni oni rekose kako su Vikinzi mnogo mocni bili i sta ce onda nije cudno sto su i oni gubili. Kako je engleski jezik jako rasiren i svi prate serije poput hbo ili history mi dobijemo seriju "Vikinge".
Takvih grupa razbojnika je bilo sirom Evrope i Azije.

U redu, ali na kraju je postao kralj Engleske. Problem Vikinga je bio isti kao i naš, jesmo ubice, ali nas ima malo. Da nam je bilo brojnosti na nivou recimo Rumuna ili Poljaka, iživljavali bismo se nad ostatkom Evrope.

 

[Khal Drogo]

Први походи на простор англосаксонских краљевстава крајем VIII и почетком IX вијека бејаху искључиво пљачкашке експедиције. Први је страдао један манастир 793.године у Нортумбрији што је обрађено и у првој сезони серије Vikings.
Англосаксонска хроника биљежи да је 840. године на обале Западне Саксоније (Wessex) стигло 35 викиншких бродова. Један викиншки брод тог времена могао је превести највише 32 мушкарца, ратника, тако да то бјеше, ако је податак у англосаксонским хроникама тачан, већ респектабилна војска од 700-1.100 ратника. Ту су побједили у бици принца тог краљевства Етелвулфа, а остало је записано;

The Northmen[a] launched a major attack on the island of Britain. After a battle lasting three days, the Northmen emerged the winners – plundering, looting, slaughtering everywhere. They wielded power over the land at will

Иако поражени у тој бици, Етелвулф и Саксонци су наставили пружати отпор, а походи Викинга су се свели на ограничене пљачкашке експедиције.

Све до 860их када шаљу у поход већу војску, тзв велику паганску армију (овдје)

Spojler: Great Heathen Army

Great Heathen Army

The Great Heathen Army (Old English: mycel hæþen here), also known as Great Danish[a] Army or the Viking Great Army,[2] was a coalition of Scandinavian warriors, mainly Danish but including warriors from Norway and Sweden, who invaded England in 865 AD. Since the late 8th century, the Vikings had engaged in raids on centres of wealth such as monasteries. The Great Heathen Army was much larger and aimed to occupy and conquer the four English kingdoms of East Anglia, Northumbria, Mercia and Wessex.

The name Great Heathen Army is derived from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of 865. Legend has it that the force was led by four of the five sons of Ragnar Lodbrok, including Hvitserk, Ivar the Boneless, Bjorn Ironside and possibly Ubba.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heathen_Army#cite_note-sons-6 The campaign of invasion and conquest against the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms lasted 14 years. Surviving sources give no firm indication of its numbers, but it was amongst the largest forces of its kind.

The invaders initially landed in East Anglia, where the king provided them with horses for their campaign in return for peace. They spent the winter of 865–66 at Thetford, before marching north to capture York in November 866. York had been founded as the Roman legionary fortress of Eboracum and revived as the Anglo-Saxon trading port of Eoforwic.

During 867, the army marched deep into Mercia and wintered in Nottingham. The Mercians agreed to terms with the Viking army, which moved back to York for the winter of 868–69. In 869, the Great Army returned to East Anglia, conquering it and killing its king. The army moved to winter quarters in Thetford.

In 871, the Vikings moved on to Wessex, where Alfred the Great paid them to leave. The army then marched to London to overwinter in 871–2. The following campaigning season the army first moved to York, where it gathered reinforcements. This force campaigned in northeastern Mercia, after which it spent the winter at Torksey, on the Trent close to the Humber.[2] The following campaigning season it seems to have subdued much of Mercia. Burgred, the king of Mercia, fled overseas and Coelwulf, described in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as 'a foolish king's thegn' was imposed in his place. The army spent the following winter at Repton on the middle Trent, after which the army seems to have divided. One group seems to have returned to Northumbria, where they settled in the area, while another group seems to have turned to invade Wessex.[5]

By this time, only the kingdom of Wessex had not been conquered. In May of 878 Alfred the Great defeated the Vikings at the Battle of Edington, and a treaty was agreed whereby the Vikings were able to remain in control of much of northern and eastern England.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle does not mention the reason for this invasion, perhaps because Viking raids were fairly common during that period of time. The Tale of Ragnar's Sons, on the other hand, mentions that the invasion of England by the Great Heathen Army was aimed at avenging the death of Ragnar Lodbrok, a legendary Viking ruler of Sweden and Denmark.[c] In the Viking saga, Ragnar is said to have conducted a raid on Northumbria during the reign of King Ælla. The Vikings were defeated and Ragnar was captured by the Northumbrians. Ælla then had Ragnar executed by throwing him into a pit of venomous snakes. When the sons of Ragnar received news of their father's death, they decided to avenge him.[6]

Background
Viking[d] raids began in England in the late 8th century, primarily on monasteries.[8] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for AD 787[e] reports the first confrontation with the Vikings in England.[1][9]

AD 787 – This year king Bertric took to wife Eadburga, king Offa's daughter; and in his days first came three ships of Northmen, out of Hæretha-land [Denmark]. And then the reeve rode to the place, and would have driven them to the king's town, because he knew not who they were: and they there slew him. These were the first ships of Danishmen which sought the land of the English nation.

This incident is regarded, by some, as the first raid on England.[10] Æthelweard's version of the Chronicle, known as the Chronicon Æthelweardi, has a slightly different version of events, saying that the reeve, a certain Beaduheard, had spoken to the visitors in an "authorative tone" and this is why they killed him.[10] It has to be mentioned, that the assignment of these "Hæretha-landers" as Danes is somewhat problematic. Sara María Pons-Sanz states in "Analysis of the Scandinavian Loanwords in the Aldredian Glosses to the Lindisfarne Gospels", they were either men from Harthæsysæl (Hardsyssel) in Jutland, so actually Danes, or from Hörthaland in Norway, so that in the last case the word "Danish" refers to all Scandinavian people.[11]

The first monastery to be raided was in 793 at Lindisfarne, off the northeast coast; the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle described the Vikings as "heathen men".[12] Monasteries and minster churches were popular targets as they were wealthy and had valuable objects that were portable.[13] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the year 840 says that Æthelwulf of Wessex was defeated at Carhampton, Somerset, after 35 Viking ships had landed in the area.[14] The Annals of St. Bertin also reported the incident, stating:

The Northmen[a] launched a major attack on the island of Britain. After a battle lasting three days, the Northmen emerged the winners – plundering, looting, slaughtering everywhere. They wielded power over the land at will.[f]

Despite this setback, Æthelwulf did have some success against the Vikings. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has repeated references during his reign of victories won by ealdormen with the men of their shires.[16] However, the raiding of England continued on and off until the 860s, when instead of raiding, the Vikings changed their tactics and sent a great army to invade England. This army was described by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as a "Great Heathen Army" (OE: mycel hæþen here or mycel heathen here).[17][18][19][20]

The size of the army


A reconstruction of a Viking from Repton in Mercia. This model is now in Derby Museum.[g]

Historians provide varying estimates for the size of the Great Heathen Army.[21] According to the 'minimalist' scholars, such as Pete Sawyer, the army may have been smaller than traditionally thought.[22][23] Sawyer notes that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of 865 referred to the Viking force as a Heathen Army, or in Old English "hæþen here".[22][19]

The law code of King Ine of Wessex, issued in about 694, provides a definition of here (pronounced /ˈheːre/) as "an invading army or raiding party containing more than thirty five men", thus differentiating between the term for the invading Viking army and the Anglo-Saxon army that was referred to as the fyrd.[22][24] The scribes who wrote the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle used the term here to describe the Viking forces. The historian Richard Abels suggested that this was to differentiate between the Viking war bands and those of military forces organised by the state or the crown. However, by the late 10th and early 11th century, here was used more generally as the term for army, whether it was Viking or not.[21]

Sawyer produced a table of Viking ship numbers, as documented in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and assumes that each Viking ship could carry no more than 32 men, leading to his conclusion that the army would have consisted of no more than 1,000 men.[22] Other scholars give higher estimates. For example, Laurent Mazet-Harhoff observes that many thousands of men were involved in the invasions of the Seine area. However, Mazet-Harhoff does say that the military bases that would accommodate these large armies have yet to be rediscovered.[25][26] Guy Halsall reported that, in the 1990s, several historians suggested that the Great Heathen Army would have numbered in the low thousands; however, Halsall advises that there "clearly is still much room for debate".[23]

The army probably developed from the campaigns in France. In Francia, there was a conflict between the Emperor and his sons, and one of the sons had welcomed the support from a Viking fleet.[27] By the time that the war had ended, the Vikings had discovered that monasteries and towns situated on navigable rivers were vulnerable to attack. In 845, a raid on Paris was prevented by the large payment of silver to the Vikings. The opportunity for rich pickings drew other Vikings to the area, and by the end of the decade all the main rivers of West Francia were being patrolled by Viking fleets.[27] In 862, the West Frankish king responded to the Vikings, fortifying his towns and defending his rivers, thus making it difficult for the Vikings to raid inland. The lower reaches of the rivers and the coastal regions were left largely undefended. Religious communities in these areas, however, chose to move inland away from the reaches of the Viking fleets. With the changes in Francia making raiding more difficult, the Vikings turned their attention to England.[27]

Invasion of England
The Viking leaders would often join together for mutual benefit and then dissolve once profit had been achieved.[21] Several of the Viking leaders who had been active in Francia and Frisia joined forces to conquer the four kingdoms constituting Anglo-Saxon England. The composite force probably contained elements from Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Ireland as well as those who had been fighting on the continent. The Anglo-Saxon historian Æthelweard was very specific in his chronicle and said that "the fleets of the viking tyrant Hingwar landed in England from the north".[27][28]

The Vikings had been defeated by the West Saxon King Æthelwulf in 851, so rather than land in Wessex they decided to go further north to East Anglia.[17][27][29] Legend has it that the united army was led by the three sonshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heathen_Army#cite_note-sons-6 of Ragnar Lodbrok: Halfdan Ragnarsson, Ivar the Boneless (Hingwar), and Ubba.[17][27][29] Norse sagas consider the invasion by the three brothers[c] as a response to the death of their father at the hands of Ælla of Northumbria in 865, but the historicity of this claim is uncertain.[30][31]

Start of the invasion, 865

Silver penny of Æthelred I, King of Wessex (865–871)

In late 865, the Great Heathen Army encamped in the Isle of Thanet and was promised by the people of Kent danegeld in exchange for peace. Regardless, the Vikings did not abide by this agreement and proceeded to rampage across eastern Kent.[32][33]

The Vikings used East Anglia as a starting point for an invasion. The East Anglians made peace with the invaders by providing them with horses.[34] The Vikings stayed in East Anglia for the winter before setting out for Northumbria towards the end of 866, establishing themselves at York. In 867, the Northumbrians paid danegeld and the Viking Army established a puppet leader in Northumbria before setting off for the Kingdom of Mercia, where in 867 they captured Nottingham. The king of Mercia requested help from the king of Wessex to help fight the Vikings. A combined army from Wessex and Mercia besieged the city of Nottingham with no clear result, so the Mercians settled on paying the Vikings off. The Vikings returned to Northumbria in autumn 868 and overwintered in York, staying there for most of 869. They returned to East Anglia and spent the winter of 869–70 at Thetford. While in Thetford, they were attacked by Edmund, king of East Anglia, with whom they had no peace agreement. The Viking army was victorious in these battles, and Edmund was captured, possibly tortured, and killed. He would later come to be known as Edmund the Martyr.[35]

In 871, the Great Summer Army arrived from Scandinavia, led by Bagsecg.[36] The reinforced Viking army turned its attention to Wessex but the West Saxons, led by King Æthelred's brother Alfred, defeated them on 8 January 871 at the Battle of Ashdown, slaying Bagsecg in the process. Three months later, Æthelred died and was succeeded by Alfred (later known as Alfred the Great), who bought[h] the Vikings off to gain time. During 871–72, the Great Heathen Army wintered in London before returning to Northumbria. It seems that there had been a rebellion against the puppet ruler in Northumbria, so they returned to restore power. They then established their winter quarters for 872–73 at Torksey in the Kingdom of Lindsey (now part of Lincolnshire).[38] The Mercians again paid them off in return for peace,[h] and at the end of 873 the Vikings took up winter quarters at Repton in Derbyshire.[39]

In 874, following their winter stay in Repton, the Great Heathen Army drove the Mercian king into exile and finally conquered Mercia; the exiled Mercian king was replaced by Ceolwulf. According to Alfred the Great's biographer Asser, the Vikings then split into two bands.[40][41] Halfdan led one band north to Northumbria, where he overwintered by the river Tyne (874–75). In 875 he ravaged further north to Scotland, where he fought the Picts and the Britons of Strathclyde.[42] Returning south of the border in 876, he shared out Northumbrian land amongst his men, who "ploughed the land and supported themselves"; this land was part of what became known as the Danelaw.[41]

King Alfred's victory
According to Asser, the second band was led by Guthrum, Oscetel, and Anwend. This group also left Repton in 874 and established a base at Cambridge for the winter of 874–75. In late 875 they moved onto Wareham, where they raided the surrounding area and occupied a fortified position. Asser reports that Alfred made a treaty with the Vikings to get them to leave Wessex.[40][43] The Vikings left Wareham, but it was not long before they were raiding other parts of Wessex, and initially they were successful. Alfred fought back, however, and eventually won victory over them at the Battle of Edington in 878. This was followed closely by what was described by Asser as the Treaty of Wedmore, where Guthrum agreed to be baptised and then for him and his army to leave Wessex.[44] Then some time after, the Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum was agreed, that set out the boundaries between Alfred and Guthrum's territories as well as agreements on peaceful trade, and the weregild value of their people.[45]

Aftermath

A sword of a Viking buried at Repton in Mercia. This sword is now in Derby Museum.

In late 878, Guthrum's band withdrew to Cirencester, in the kingdom of Mercia.[46] Then, probably in late 879, it moved to East Anglia,[47] where Guthrum, who was also known by his baptismal name of Aethelstan, reigned as king until his death in 890.[48] The part of the army that did not go with Guthrum mostly went on to more settled lives in Northumbria and York. Some may have settled in Mercia. Evidence for this is the presence of two Viking cemeteries in Derbyshire that are believed to be connected to the Great Army, at Repton and at Heath Wood.[5]

In 878, a third Viking army gathered on Fulham by the Thames. It seems they were partly discouraged by the defeat of Guthrum but also Alfred's success against the Vikings coincided with a period of renewed weakness in Francia. The Frankish emperor, Charles the Bald, died in 877 and his son shortly after, precipitating a period of political instability of which the Vikings were quick to take advantage. The assembled Viking army on the Thames departed in 879 to begin new campaigns on the continent.[49][50]

In 892, the army that had encamped on Fulham, now comprising 250 ships, had returned and re-established itself in Appledore, Kent.[51] Another army of 80 ships soon afterwards also encamped in Milton Regis, posing a threat to the West Saxons.[51] The army subsequently launched a series of attacks on Wessex. Due in part to the king's efforts to resist the invaders and defend Wessex, the Danish army made less of an impact against the kingdom than hoped and saw little progress, eventually disbanding in 896.[52]

Throughout the 880s, the Viking presence in his kingdom encouraged Alfred to protect Wessex. The king realised the importance of naval combat against the Vikings and saw to the creation of a navy; Alfred ordered the construction of specialised ships that were supposedly twice as long as Danish ships, some possessing 60 oars, others possessing even more.[33][53] Alfred also reorganised the army and set up a powerful system of fortified towns known as burhs. He mainly used old Roman cities for his burhs, as he was able to rebuild and reinforce their existing fortifications.[54][55] Every freeman in the land could be called out to protect the realm in times of trouble but the speed of Viking hit-and-run raids had been too quick for the local militias to act; part of Alfred's reforms were to create a standing army that could react rapidly to attacks. The Anglo-Saxon rural population lived within a 24 km (15-mile) radius of each burh, so they were able to seek refuge when necessary.[56] To maintain the burhs, as well as the standing army, Alfred set up a system of taxation and conscription that is recorded in a document now known as the Burghal Hidage.[57] The burhs were connected with a network of military roads, known as herepaths, enabling Alfred's troops to move swiftly to engage the enemy. Some historians believe that each burh would have had a mounted force ready for action against the Vikings.[58] Based on figures from the Burghal Hidage, it is probable that a fifth of the adult male population of Wessex (27,000 men) would have been mobilised.[59] A common Viking tactic was to seize a centre, usually some sort of fortification, that they could reinforce and then use as a base to plunder the surrounding district. From 884 Alfred's reforms prevented them from doing this in Wessex.[59]

By 896, the Viking army was all but defeated and no longer saw any reason to continue their attacks and dispersed to East Anglia and Northumbria. Those that were penniless found themselves ships and went south across the sea to the Seine.[33][52][60][61] This influx of new settlers helped consolidate the ever-growing establishment of danelaw.[62] Anglo-Saxon England had been torn apart by the invading Great Heathen Army and the Vikings had control of northern and eastern England, while Alfred and his successors had defended their kingdom and remained in control of Wessex.[63]

Archaeological sites
The stone church of St Wystan at Repton was, in the 9th century, the site of an Anglo-Saxon monastery and church. Excavations at the site between 1974–1988 found a D-shaped earthwork on the river bank, incorporated into the church. Burials of Viking type were made at the east end of the church, and an existing building was cut down and converted into the chamber of a burial mound that revealed the disarticulated remains of at least 249 people, with their long bones pointing towards the centre of the burial. A large stone coffin was found in the middle of the mass grave; however, the remains of this individual did not survive. A study of the skeletal remains revealed that at least 80% of the individuals were male, and were between the ages of 15 and 45.[64] Further investigation of the male skeletal remains revealed that they were dissimilar to the local population of Repton, most likely of Scandinavian descent, and many showed signs of violent injury. In contrast, analysis of the female remains revealed that they were similar to the local population, suggesting an Anglo-Saxon lineage.[64] It is possible that the people in the grave may have suffered some sort of epidemic when the army overwintered in Repton during 873–74, leading to the mass burial.[41] A variety of Viking artifacts, such as a silver Thor's hammer, were also found among the bones.[64]

Although initial radiocarbon dating suggested that the bodies had accumulated there over several centuries, in February 2018, a team out of the University of Bristol announced that the remains could indeed all be dated to the late 9th century, consistent with the time the army wintered in Derbyshire. They attributed the initial discrepancies to the high consumption of seafood by the Vikings. Because the carbon in the Earth's oceans is older than much of the carbon found by organisms on land, radiocarbon dating must be adjusted. This is called the marine reservoir effect.[65][66]

The nearby Heath Wood barrow cemetery contains about sixty cremations (rather than burials). Finds of cremation sites in the British Isles are very rare, and this one probably was the war cemetery of the Great Heathen Army.[5]

Ту се мијешају легенде и рукописи англосаксонских хроника, један од разлога покретања овог великог сада већ освајаћког похода бјеше освета за смрт Рагнара Лодброка око 865.године, а тако је и у серији обрађено.
Ову велику војску по тим записима су водили Рагнарови синови, што вероватно јесте исправно.
Поход бјеше изузетно успјешан, побједили су Саксонце у више битака;

Постоје различите процјене о величини ове велике паганске армије, крећу се од хиљаде до неколико хиљада, данас то не дјелује пуно, за оно вријеме то бјеше респектабилна војна сила, посебно што војска бјеше састављена од прекаљених ратника.

Након успјешне војне кампање и подјеле плијена, викиншке снаге су се подијелиле, а око 878.године имали су под својом контролом око 1/3 територије касније Енглеске.

Каснијих деценија Саксонци ће успкјешније пружати отпор Викинзима, највише тзаслугом Алфреда великог. У X вијеку ратовало се са промјењивом срећом уз дуже периоде мира.
Све до 1016.године када је дански владар Кнут постао краљем читаве Енглеске.
Он заиста јесте два пута безуспјешно опседао Лондон, склопљен је споразум да Кнут влада сјеверним подручјем а Едмунд из западне Саксоније јужним, уз клаузулу да читав териториј припадне Кнуту након Едмундове смрти.
Едмунд убрзо умире, а управо у Лондону кантербуршки надбискуп га је 1017.године крунисао краљем читаве Енглеске.

 

[Khal Drogo]

Kod Pariza su izgubili.

Ако је овај осврт одговор на дио у мом посту

....И опсада Париза око 845.године иако пљачкаши поход бјеше успјешна.

Био сам јасан у посту, опсада Париза (овдје) 845.године (не треба бркати са опсадом 885.године) за Викинге бјеше изузетно успјешна.

Spojler: Siege of Paris (845)

Siege of Paris (845)

The siege of Paris of 845 AD was the culmination of a Viking invasion of France. The Viking forces were led by a Norse chieftain named "Reginherus", or Ragnar, who tentatively has been identified with the legendary saga character Ragnar Lodbrok (Old Norse: "Ragnarr Loþbrók", contemporary Icelandic: "Ragnar Loðbrók"). Ragnar's fleet of 120 Viking ships, carrying thousands of men, entered the Seine in March and proceeded to sail up the river.

The Frankish king Charles the Bald assembled a smaller army in response but after the Vikings defeated one division, comprising half of the army, the remaining forces retreated. The Vikings reached Paris at the end of the month, during Easter. They plundered and occupied the city, then withdrew when they had been paid a ransom of 7,000 French livres [2,570 kilograms (83,000 ozt)] of silver and gold from Charles the Bald.

Background
The Frankish Empire was first attacked by Viking raiders in 799 (ten years after the earliest known Viking attack at Portland, Dorset, in England), which led Charlemagne to create a defence system along the northern coast in 810. The defence system repulsed a Viking attack at the mouth of the Seine in 820 (after Charlemagne's death) but failed to hold against renewed attacks of Danish Vikings in Frisia and Dorestad in 834.[1] The attacks in 820 and 834 were unrelated and relatively minor; systematic raiding did not begin until the mid-830s, with the activity alternating between the two sides of the English Channel.[2] Viking raids were often part of struggles among Scandinavian nobility for power and status.[3] Like other nations adjacent to the Franks, the Danes were well-informed about the political situation in France; in the 830s and early 840s they took advantage of the Frankish civil wars.[4] Big raids took place in Antwerp and Noirmoutier in 836, in Rouen (on the Seine) in 841 and in Quentovic and Nantes in 842.[1]

Invasion and siege
In March 845,[5] a fleet of 120 Danish Viking ships[1][6] containing more than 5,000 men[7] entered the Seine under the command of a Danish chieftain[8] named "Reginherus", or Ragnar.[1] This Ragnar has often been tentatively identified with the legendary saga figure Ragnar Lodbrok, but the accuracy of this remains a disputed issue among historians.[5][7] Around 841, Ragnar had been awarded land in Turholt, Flanders, by Charles the Bald, but he eventually lost the land as well as the favour of the King.[9] Ragnar's Vikings raided Rouen on their way up the Seine in 845,[8] and in response to the invasion, Charles—who was determined not to let the royal Abbey of Saint-Denis (near Paris) be destroyed[8]—assembled an army which he divided into two parts, one for each side of the river.[5] Ragnar attacked and defeated one of the divisions of the smaller Frankish army, took 111 of their men as prisoners and hanged them on an island on the Seine.[5] This was done to honour the Norse god Odin,[1] as well as to incite terror in the remaining Frankish forces.[5]


Map of Paris in the 9th century. The city was concentrated on Île de la Cité, an island in the Seine.

The Vikings arrived in Paris on Easter Sunday, 29 March,[8] entered the city and plundered it.[5][8] During the siege, a plague broke out in their camp. The Norse had been exposed to the Christian religion, and after first praying to the Norse gods, they undertook a fast, acting on the advice of one of their Christian prisoners, and the plague subsided.[10] The Franks could not assemble an effective defence,[5] and the Vikings withdrew only after being paid a ransom of 7,000 livres (French pounds) of silver and gold by Charles the Bald,[9] amounting to approximately 2,570 kilograms (5,670 lb).[11]

Considering Ragnar's earlier loss of land to Charles, the substantial payment may also have been regarded as some form of compensation to Ragnar, and the invasion itself as an act of revenge.[9] This was the first of a total of thirteen payments of so-called Danegeld to Viking raiders by the Franks[1] (the term is not expressly known to have been used at this point).[12] While agreeing to withdraw from Paris, Ragnar pillaged several sites along the coast on the return voyage, including the Abbey of Saint Bertin.[8]

Although Charles had been criticised severely for granting the large ransom payment to the Vikings, he had other more critical issues to deal with at the same time, including disputes with his brothers, regional revolts and disgruntled nobles, as well as pressure from abroad. Since he would have trouble trusting his own counts to assemble and lead troops to defeat Ragnar's large force militarily, paying them off instead would buy Charles time, and possibly peace from further Viking raids—at least in the near future.[12]

Aftermath
The same year, a Viking fleet sacked Hamburg,[3][5] which had been elevated to an archbishopric by Pope Gregory IV in 831 on the initiative of Louis the Pious to oversee the Saxon territory and to support the introduction of Christianity to Scandinavia.[3] In response, the Frankish king Louis the German sent a diplomatic mission, headed by Count Cobbo (one of two court counts), to the court of Horik, demanding that the Danish king submit to Frankish overlordship and pay reparations for the invasion. Horik eventually agreed to the terms and requested a peace treaty with Louis, while also promising to return the treasure and captives from the raid. Horik most likely wanted to secure the border with Saxony as he faced a conflict with King Olof of Sweden and domestic struggles. By the treaty, Louis demanded Horik's obedience, which was further secured by Horik regularly sending embassies and gifts to Louis and his suspension of support to Viking raiders.[3]

Although many Vikings had died in the plague during the siege of Paris, Ragnar lived to return home to King Horik. According to a story originating from a member of Cobbo's embassy, Ragnar, having attacked the Abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, then in the outskirts of medieval Paris and which Cobbo later visited, attributed the plague to the power of Saint Germain of Paris.[13] While Ragnar showed the gold and silver he had acquired to Horik and boasted about how easy he thought the conquest of Paris had been,[9] he reportedly collapsed crying while relating that the only resistance he had met was from the long deceased saint.[13] As several of Ragnar's men died not long after, the king was so frightened that he ordered the execution of the survivors and the release of his Christian captives.[13] This event, in part, led Horik to receive Archbishop Ansgar, "Apostle of the North", on friendly terms in his own kingdom.[13] Vikings returned again and again in the 860s and secured loot or ransom but, in a turning point for the history of France, the city's walls held against the Vikings' greatest attacking force in the siege of Paris (885–86).[citation needed]

Викиншка војска је крајем марта 845.године продрла у Париз и опљачкала га. Уз то, франачки цар Карло ћелави је морао платити 2.570 кг злата и сребра. Тако да то за викиншку војску од неких 5.000 ратника и поред отежавајуће околности да им је камп током опсаде напала куга, бјеше фантастично богат плијен и изузетно успјешан поход.

Имамо и документарац о тој опсади;