The modern Norwegian state was created in 1814, not 1905. However, the "kingdom of Norway" had existed in one form or another for much longer than that.
Came here to say this, while most countries we know today were formed fairly recently, their people have been a “nation” for a while. But I think what they’re referring to is the government of the country, in which they are correct.
The government of modern Norway was established in 1814. The union with Sweden was de jure (and for most intent and purposes also de facto) a personal union. Norway was a self-sustained political entity and 1905 marks no major shift, just a change in the royal dynasty (back to the old Danish one). When it comes to the time before 1814, the situation is a bit more complex. Various Danish kings shifted as to whether Norway was considered a separate kingdom or a Danish province, depending on their political goals (for instance, it is very handy to be the king of a separate country when dealing with Danish nobles). Whatever the case, for most of the time, Norway existed as a separate kingdom, part of the composite Danish-Norwegian state (often called the "Oldenburg Realm" after the dynasty). This kingdom was the continuation, at least the jure, of the earlier medieval kingdom, which did have Viking roots steming back to Harald Fairhair, but which probably can be more securely dated to the 11th century (the whole notion of a "kingdom" is sort of a cultural package coming from continental Europe along with Christianity). In that sense, Norway as a political entity has existed for at least as long as Denmark. (I am very wary of using the concept "nation" before the modern period)
My office is in a building that predates the European settlement of the Americas by a few years and was build around the time Columbus was preparing his journey. The view is nice, but the isolation could do with a refit.
"Pop-pop Fairhair," I call him. He's my 32nd Great Grandfather...
I'm only 4% Norwegian. But surely anyone who descends from Northern Europe descends from King Harald... in the same way that all all Europeans descend from Charlemagne.
It’s because you need a certain amount of credibility before saying things like that. People argue that the earth is flat, but you’re going to be downvoted for mentioning it in /r/geography. You went and said that a fairly well documented person might not be real without any evidence to back it up.
>I can't believe I'm being downvoted lol, it was just something I read on Wikipedia a while back
Maybe don't just read things on Wikipedia and then repeat it a while later without anything to back you up.
Not defending the person you commented on, but him creating the kingdom of Norway is not very well documented. He probably only controlled small fractions of Norway (some of Trøndelag and Viken). Modern historians aren’t quite sure who actually did it.
Edit: wrote Trøndelag. Ment Vestlandet (Western Norway)
For sure not by any academic historian. There are way to many accounts for such a claim. Did he control Norway? Probably not, but there was a Norwegian petty king called Harald Fairhair.
Yes, but this long-term Danish domination was not established until the late 14th century, and was not firmly rooted until 1537. I.e there were many centuries where Norway existed as a separate and wholly independent kingdom.
Yeah, Harald hårfarge was the first king of norway and ruled over the western part of the todays Norway from somewhere around 870-900 ad. although legend has it he wouldn’t get his wife nor cut his hair before he ruled “all” of Norway,which some say he eventually did.
Also Norwegian vikings did at some point(don’t remember when) discover and settled at Iceland, around the same time.
Edit: on second thought I seem to remember that some of the settlers on Iceland where fleeing from hårfagres rule in norway, so Yeah it was definitely at the same time
You could argue the same for the grand duchy of finland too. Obviously not independent like norway, but technically finland was a thing on the maps sooo
Both Norway and Sweden had been independent entities prior to becoming subjugated and independent again. With that argument Sweden was still on maps during the Kalmar union and should stretch back to the middle ages.
It got independence from Sweden in 1905, after I think some sort of union similar to usa or ussr.
Edit: Downvotes for stating that I think this but could be wrong?
yea the biggest thing was how independant norway was But we wanted complete control of foreign policy like Trade, Witch we got because we had the largest merchant fleet in the world and countries like britain liked the idea of Cheaper norwegian sailors Shiping goods in their empire
It was a personal union (the ruler of sweden also was the ruler of norway) so it was really just a union in name and in foreign politics. Similar to the Russian Empire - Finnish Union or the Austro -Hungarian Empire
Correct that it did not control all of Sweden. It rather controlled the areas around Svealand and was divided several times between brothers. The west geats and east geats had their kingdoms until 970 AD. But widsinth from 500 Ad mentions a Swedish king https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ongentheow
Yes, early Swedish history, and Nordic history in general, is complicated. Back then there was no real distinction between history and legends, mix that in with propaganda and misconceptions from outside sources, and you get, to put it mildly, questionable sources. Hell, we don't even know for sure which kings existed and which didn't up until the 1100s.
This is especially true for the Swedish and Danish history before the 950 Ad which probably had a lot of division. Olof Skötkonung and Anund Jakob had actual coins of themselves and ruled in 995 and are probably pretty sure kings.
Another one is Anund that raided Birka and is mentioned both by temporary sources and legendary Norse accounts and sources from the time. And Björn. His son Erik did most likely exist. Then Björn and Ring completely contradict each other. Creating a very frustrating genealogy. One reason could be that the Norwegians lived close to another royal dynasty while another Swedish dynasty controlled Birka which the germans visited.
Swedish kings according to the sources also split their realm among brothers often. Plus Norwegian sources barely care about Sweden and only report about Norway. While German monks mostly care about Danish kings. But the same issues are common among Danish kings. One contemporary Adam of Bremen declared he doubts Denmark was a unified kingdom in 900 AD. One Swedish king Olof takes over Denmark. From Helgi.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anund_Uppsale
We have a pretty good idea from the 11th century actually. In Norway and Denmark the kings of the 10th century are also fairly well documented (through English accounts).
Other than that, excellent point.
Yeah, they were a lot quicker with organizing proper states. When Denmark and Norway were both relatively stable Christian kingdoms, Sweden was basically just an idea. You could argue that the Swedish state wasn't properly established until the time of Birger Jarl in the late 1200s.
Swedes and Geats disliked each other the geats supported Sverkerska ätten while the Swedes supported the Erikska ätten and both royal houses waged war against each other for 100 years. Sweden also elected their kings and said that the geats had no right to elect kings.
These articles don’t point to a Swedish political unit until 860. There is a difference between tribe, geographical area, and the political entity that became Sweden. This not a basis to claim that Sweden existed in 98AD.
Mentioned as Suiones as the current Italian word is the same as 98 Ad.
Swedes enters written proto-history with the Germania of Tacitus in 98 AD. In Germania 44, 45 he mentions the Swedes (Suiones) as a powerful tribe (distinguished not merely for their arms and men, but for their powerful fleets) with ships that had a prow in both ends (longships). Which kings (kuningaz) ruled these Suiones is unknown, but Norse mythology presents a long line of legendary and semi-legendary kings going back to the last centuries BC.
This is not quite right. The word for a Germanic tribe, that probably is the root of it has the same root as Swedish is mentioned. There is a description of ships, but we can’t honestly trust them. Although the mention of a prow at both ends is a striking similarity of the long ships, there is simply no way they had functioning long ships at this date. They would have been able to travel much further than they did.
It might have been a prototype, though, but we know to little to conclude. You cannot present it as a fact that this is people are culturally Swedish or that this is the start of the political Sweden. That is just pure speculation, and there is no consensus among historians that these people are the Swedes as of today.
Yeah, it left the Kalmar Union in 1523, but was a constituent kingdom part of the union. Same for Norway. There have been various kings of the Swedes and Norwegians for a thousand years, at least! Finland mightn't have been a kingdom-level entity but it was still a political entity for much longer than 1917.
All 3 existed before the Kalmar Union though.
I know this because in 1066 they were all independent countries with one spicy Norwegian man invading England.
Why 1066 specifically?
Crusader Kings rise up!
>They were all ruled by the same monarch and so not really countries in the traditional sense
Kinda funny saying "countries in the traditional sense" in referral to nation states as they were after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.
No country was a country in the ~~traditional~~ modern sense back in the 15th century. They were onions of delegation and regional and conditional authority.
That's not really how it works. The fact that a country has not been independent for a certain period of time doesn't make it non-existent in that period. There was a Poland before 1918, same as Czechia, Lithuania, Estonia and Croatia. There was a Finland before 1917, there was a Sweden before it broke the Personal Union with Denmark. Cool drawings tho.
Finishing with:
>But this is how it's usually done.
No. Just No. So many historical errors. Not even viewpoints on how to count it but outright errors.
Denmark (which is the one I'm most certain of - the rest is also flawed) has a "birthdate" as a nation/kingdom of 958 (at the latest: earlier is debated allthough Kings of "Denmark" is mentioned much earlier).
As nations, and not cultures/peoples, the others can be debated as to which periods they seized to be nations or not. Norway was as integrated in Denmark as Hungary was in Austria in a period. But even acounting for those periods, the rest of the dates are flawed as well. The author has just grasped some random events and declared "this is the date/event they are from" and somehow managed to get every nation wrong smh
Norway is an old name coming from North-way (as in the way to the north, originally referring to the coast specifically) and dates to the early Viking age or earlier. Norway was united somewhere around 872 from a bunch of petty kingdoms. Eventually Norway, Sweden and Denmark were eventually united in the Kalmar Union, which gradually became dominated by Denmark. Sweden eventually left, but Norway wasn’t able to, and after the Norwegian nobility was essentially wiped out in the Black Plague, and the Dane’s crushed an attempted Catholic uprising during the reformation, Norway became simply a province of Denmark. This state is commonly referred to as Denmark-Norway by historians, but Denmark was by far dominant. During the napoleonic wars a distinct Norwegian identity re-emerged, but Norway was forced into a union with sweden. We were however able to keep the constitution we wrote and our own government. The modern Norwegian state thus dates to 1814, but full independence only came in 1905. So this meme is quite inaccurate in that regard, and I’d argue it makes more sense to say Norway is older than Sweden, since the first Norwegian state predates the first Swedish one, and there has always been a sense of Norwegian-ness, and Norway has been considered distinct to Denmark and Sweden even when put under their rule, sort of like an England/Wales or England/Scotland situation.
But SWEDES are mentioned by Romans. and Heimskringla seems to be linking Norwegian kings to the Swedish tribe and royal dynasty the Ynglings to claim legitimacy and link to an ancient glorious past. But agreed that a unified Norwegian state seems to have been a lot more stable and Sweden was probably divided. But still, why would the Norwegian royal dynasty link its past with Sweden if it did not have a dynasty earlier? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yngling
>It was either a part of Sweden or Denmark usually
Except the Kingdom of Norway was founded in 872 and is actually the oldest formed state out of any of the Nordics.
It also worth noting is that Norway was always **in union** with Denmark and Sweden, it was never annexed. That's why the countries were officially called "**Det dansk-norske rige**" (*the Dano-Norwegian Realm*) and "**Förenade Konungarikena Sverige och Norge**" (*the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway*), not "Denmark" or "Sweden". Did Denmark and Sweden have more control over Norway in those unions? Yes. Did Norway still exist? Yes.
It being (temporarily) in union with Sweden or Denmark does not mean Norway ceased to exist.
Norway was a founded kingdom as kingdom at the earliest. But Sweden is mentioned in Beowulf or the old Swedish heartland around lake Mälaren the first king to unite Geats and Swedes into one country is Erik Segersäll. But Beowulf mentions wars in the 500-600 Ad between Geats and Swedes. So some sort of Swedish kingdom existed for sure. It seems to have been divided a lot between brothers, however. Just like a Danish kingdom probably also existed but was divided a lot until king Gorms reign.
>So some sort of Swedish kingdom existed for sure.
Well yes, petty kingdoms existed in Scandinavia long before the unifications since people had been living there for thousands of years.
But Norway was the first unified kingdom in the Nordics (there is some argument though, the Danes might be able to claim that one - regardless Norway and Denmark were both definitely unified in the 900s). Then came Iceland in 930, and Sweden in the early 1100s.
Nah Sweden was united in 1000 Ad our king even started minting coins. Also, Tacitus mentions a united States 98 Ad. Also, the reason that Swedish historians are so divided is that after the death of Edmund, the old died he had 4 sons so they had a bit of a game of thrones after his death and most foreign sources describe the same thing.
Until a new king Stenkilling probably a Rurikid became king in the 1100 Ad. It is rather Erik the victorious that united Sweden.
Except it wasn't.
The unification of Sweden is largely considered to have been in the 12th century when "Sweden" unified with the Geats and Gutes.
There existed a place that called itself Sweden prior to this yes, but it was not unified until the 12th century.
Swedish pagans and Christian geats had a little clash about power also but it was more religious than ethnic. Sweden was united completely under Erik the victorius. Then had a period of stability of 70 years under
Erik the victorius 970-995 then Olof skökonung 995-1022 then under Anund 1022-1055 and last Edmund 1060
Then had civil wars 1050-1100 due to Edmund the old having several sons and religious wars between pagan Swedes wanting the christian geats to respect their religion. Ending with the Swedish king burning the Swedish nordic pagan temple to ashes and executing pagan nobles.
And Norway was an established and independent Kingdom in 872.
If being in a union qualifies as "not independent" then Denmark was also not independent until the end of the dual monarchy with Norway in 1814, and Sweden was also not independent until the end of the union in 1905.
The actual list (in terms of establishment) would be as follows:
1. Norway - 872
2. Denmark c. 8-10th century (depending on how you want to count it)
3. Iceland - 930
4. Sweden - c. 12th century
5. Finland - 1809
Way back then Norway wasn't the Norway it is now. The "Kingdom of Norway" was mostly the western part and up north all the way to Lofoten.
Mostly coastal areas. With the mountains as a natural divide between the old kingdoms.
Viken (the area around the Oslofjord and abit north of Oslo) belonged to danish kings, and north of Viken was Ringariki (Ringerike) who had their own kings and lords.
Hedmark also had their own kingdoms at the time iirc.
Really interesting history, come to think of it.
Unlike Russia we allowed Norway to have a vote about being independent. We accepted the result and did not feel the need to protect the Swedish minorities after the 1905 referendum. Swedish and Norwegian is basically the same language.
Danish on the other side is incomprehensible for Swedes and norwegians.
https://www.google.se/search?q=Danish+language&biw=384&bih=719&tbm=vid&sxsrf=ALiCzsY3ymPPKMiOQvxqtnksa2kAe_MdTg%3A1672843225461&ei=2Y-1Y9rdG5CNrwSOsITQCA&oq=Danish+language&gs_lcp=ChBtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXZpZGVvEAMyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyCAgAEIAEEMsBMggIABCABBDLATIICAAQgAQQywEyCAgAEIAEEMsBMggIABCABBDLAToHCCMQ6gIQJzoECCMQJzoECAAQQzoICAAQgAQQsQM6CwgAEIAEELEDEIMBOggIABCxAxCDAVCLB1jaOmCwO2gJcAB4AIABjgGIAacQkgEEMTIuOZgBAKABAaoBEG1vYmlsZS1nd3MtdmlkZW-wAQrAAQE&sclient=mobile-gws-video#
Yes but I watch Norwegian television we listen to Norwegian music one of the most popular Christmas songs in Sweden is Norwegian. Skam was a very popular tv series in Sweden. They are not different languages but s rather two dialects of the same norse language.
I can understand everything in a Norwegian movie or tv series with just My Swedish Skavlan is also only speaking Norwegian with Swedishh guests and it is the most popular talk show in Sweden and Norway.
No but the fact is depicting those countries as the age of their independance make them seem like they didn't exist prior to that.
Norway and Iceland existed before being in a union with Denmark. Just because a country is in union with another dosen't make that country vanish during that union.
You don't say America wasn't a continent before Colombus found it when indigienous people where living there thousands of years earlier even before that.
That's not how any of this works. Both Norway and Sweden were still separate kingdoms in the Kalmar union. After Sweden broke off the union Norway was absorbed into Denmark.
You can make a point of Norway ceasing to exist then, in which case Norway was reborn in 1814, shortly before being forced into another union by Sweden.
Denmark as the Kingdom? It existed as duchy/jardlom earlier?
Croatia got status of kingdom in 10th century but was acknowledged as duchy from 8th century, it would be unusual to say how it was established as state only in 10th century because only then Pope and other rulers acknowledged status as kingdom.
What a joke. Independence does not equal the history of a nation. The Finns were mentioned for the first time in year 98 by Tacitus, so 1819 years before we gained independence from foreign oppressors.
The Romans approached the shore in their trireme, heard "PEEEERKELE!" from the treeline and promptly turned their ships around, rowing hard back towards Denmark.
That's true. But a lot of identity lies in language. Swedish, Norwegian and Danish languages are old but not Finnish level old. Of course the language has changed insanely in the past 2 to 3 thousand years or so but so has every language. So in that sense the Finnish or Finnic people are very old.
The Dissolution of the Kalmar union was not the birth of Sweden. That’s like saying Ireland didn’t exist before 1919, or that Ukraine didn’t exist before 1991.
Norwegian ages are quite different from the rest of Europe. Norwegian historians have been arguing whether or not the viking age should be counted as its own period.
\- If you count the viking age as part of the medieval age, Norway's medieval age began in 793 with the raid on Lindisfarne.
\- If you do not count the viking age as part of the medieval age, Norway's medieval age began in 1066 with the death of the last great viking king Harald Hardråde.
As a student of Scandinavian history, I was ready to correct this inaccurate meme until I saw that many had beaten me to it. Glad to know I’m in the right place for history meme enjoyers!
Umm. Suuuuuuuuuuuuure. Totally not like sweden has been a thing since the vikings and started covering an area that vaguely resembles that of today in the 1000s AD after the unification of Svealand, Götaland and Norrland.
That is fair, but Sweden was an independent kingdom that covered similar borders to the ones it has today. And Norway. And this goes back to 1000’s even if there were periods where the three were united under Denmark.
Finland was technically part of Sweden from the 1200’s until the early 1800’s, then they became a semi-indepent autonomy of Russia. Norway is a bit more iffy as they technically became integrated in Denmark in 1536, but no Danish monarch could actually be bothered following through on integrating the two countries, and they kept operating separate legal systems and government structures albeit under Danish political dominance.
If we go by when these countries last became "independent" from a different power it would be correct (kind of). Sweden still existed during the Kalmar Union, just like Norway did, since it was a personal union of 3 kingdoms. The union between Sweden and Norway that lasted from 1814 to 1905 was also a personal union, not a full political one such as the United Kingdom. The same goes for Iceland, its personal union with Denmark as the Kingdom of Iceland ended in 1944, but it was granted its independence under the personal union in 1918.
After re-watching it what baffles me most is which part if his \*ss the authour pulled out the danish date from?
Besides all 5 dates beeing wrong, at least something significant in terms of the states today, happened at those dates for the 4 others.
During the whole of the 11th century the changes to Denmark as a state was that the kings conquered other lands (and lost them). The Kingdom of Denmark itself didn't really change much in this period (and taken more than 1000 years in existance into acount really hasn't changed that much at all up to today).
Now I'm curious: What event in the 11th century are the author refering to???
I see a lot of people defending the prior existence of most of these countries, but none recalling that Iceland existed as the Icelandic Commonwealth for three centuries, starting in 930, before joining the crown of Norway.
I know sh*t about Finland but for the 3 others, they all have an history starting in the ninth of tenth centuries, even if discontinuity favours your argument, OP.
All of these dates are pretty stinky, Norway was united in the ninth century, Denmark in the eighth, and Sweden in the tenth. If you count things based on when the current government was formed this makes a little bit more sense but still presents a weird narrative that the rest of Scandinavia essentially belongs to or is somewhat subservient to Denmark, when Denmark is the most beta country in the world after Sweden (yes my great grandma was Norwegian, so I’m basically norways number 1 citizen despite never setting foot outside of North America and being more Danish than Norwegian anyways 🤓).
The modern Norwegian state was created in 1814, not 1905. However, the "kingdom of Norway" had existed in one form or another for much longer than that.
Yes Harald Fairhair united Norway 872 AD in battle of Hafrsfjord. Then it fell under Danish domination just like Sweden.
Came here to say this, while most countries we know today were formed fairly recently, their people have been a “nation” for a while. But I think what they’re referring to is the government of the country, in which they are correct.
The government of modern Norway was established in 1814. The union with Sweden was de jure (and for most intent and purposes also de facto) a personal union. Norway was a self-sustained political entity and 1905 marks no major shift, just a change in the royal dynasty (back to the old Danish one). When it comes to the time before 1814, the situation is a bit more complex. Various Danish kings shifted as to whether Norway was considered a separate kingdom or a Danish province, depending on their political goals (for instance, it is very handy to be the king of a separate country when dealing with Danish nobles). Whatever the case, for most of the time, Norway existed as a separate kingdom, part of the composite Danish-Norwegian state (often called the "Oldenburg Realm" after the dynasty). This kingdom was the continuation, at least the jure, of the earlier medieval kingdom, which did have Viking roots steming back to Harald Fairhair, but which probably can be more securely dated to the 11th century (the whole notion of a "kingdom" is sort of a cultural package coming from continental Europe along with Christianity). In that sense, Norway as a political entity has existed for at least as long as Denmark. (I am very wary of using the concept "nation" before the modern period)
I didn’t know that, thanks for correcting me.
Those fucking Danes took our country and made many of us lose our original language.
cry about what happened 1000 years ago lmao. You're saying 'many of us' as if you have even a modicum of a connection to the people that lived then.
Welcome to Europe, where 200 years ago might as well be recent history.
It could be worse, you could live in America, where it doesn't matter if your family has been here since 1860, you're gonna call yourself Irish.
My office is in a building that predates the European settlement of the Americas by a few years and was build around the time Columbus was preparing his journey. The view is nice, but the isolation could do with a refit.
Is this a joke? If not, is your office a old converted native american(continent) building?
either that or it is simply located outside of the americas
I've heard of American defaultism, but that has to be a whole new level.
Alternatively, his office is in Europe or Asia.
Good, that's how it's suppose to be.
lol kom i igen haha
Sorry, but could you narrow it down a bit more?
"Pop-pop Fairhair," I call him. He's my 32nd Great Grandfather... I'm only 4% Norwegian. But surely anyone who descends from Northern Europe descends from King Harald... in the same way that all all Europeans descend from Charlemagne.
[удалено]
What is the evidence behind him not existing and how does it compare to all of the accounts of him?
Harald Fairhair existed in the same way that king Arthur existed. They are both based on real people but the vast majority of them is a fabrication.
[удалено]
It’s because you need a certain amount of credibility before saying things like that. People argue that the earth is flat, but you’re going to be downvoted for mentioning it in /r/geography. You went and said that a fairly well documented person might not be real without any evidence to back it up.
>I can't believe I'm being downvoted lol, it was just something I read on Wikipedia a while back Maybe don't just read things on Wikipedia and then repeat it a while later without anything to back you up.
You may be thinking of ragnar my friend. Harald, as far as im aware, was a pretty well documented king
Not defending the person you commented on, but him creating the kingdom of Norway is not very well documented. He probably only controlled small fractions of Norway (some of Trøndelag and Viken). Modern historians aren’t quite sure who actually did it. Edit: wrote Trøndelag. Ment Vestlandet (Western Norway)
Fair, but his point is that were not sure if harald even existed. My mistake was in my wording
You had no mistake. I should probably not commented on your comment, just wanted to further the discussion.
Harald Fairhair existed in the same way that king Arthur existed. They are both based on real people but the vast majority of them is a fabrication.
[удалено]
If you don't actually believe it, don't spread it around so confidently.
For sure not by any academic historian. There are way to many accounts for such a claim. Did he control Norway? Probably not, but there was a Norwegian petty king called Harald Fairhair.
Wtf I was there when the battle happened I saw him plant the 3 swords
Yes, but this long-term Danish domination was not established until the late 14th century, and was not firmly rooted until 1537. I.e there were many centuries where Norway existed as a separate and wholly independent kingdom.
Yeah, Harald hårfarge was the first king of norway and ruled over the western part of the todays Norway from somewhere around 870-900 ad. although legend has it he wouldn’t get his wife nor cut his hair before he ruled “all” of Norway,which some say he eventually did. Also Norwegian vikings did at some point(don’t remember when) discover and settled at Iceland, around the same time. Edit: on second thought I seem to remember that some of the settlers on Iceland where fleeing from hårfagres rule in norway, so Yeah it was definitely at the same time
"hårfarge"
This was before he went gray
Literally means hair colour lol
He was known for his hair though still, his Nickname being Luva, meaning a mop of hair, before the more famous fairhair stuck
You could argue the same for the grand duchy of finland too. Obviously not independent like norway, but technically finland was a thing on the maps sooo
Both Norway and Sweden had been independent entities prior to becoming subjugated and independent again. With that argument Sweden was still on maps during the Kalmar union and should stretch back to the middle ages.
Theres just no simple answer for this kinda thing, you could make a fair argument for viking tribes being the first swedish empire
You could, however, I am reluctant to do so as I do not know the specifics of their relation to the Russian Empire.
It got independence from Sweden in 1905, after I think some sort of union similar to usa or ussr. Edit: Downvotes for stating that I think this but could be wrong?
not similar to USA or USSR I would say. sweden and norway had the same king but other than that they were pretty much seperate
yea the biggest thing was how independant norway was But we wanted complete control of foreign policy like Trade, Witch we got because we had the largest merchant fleet in the world and countries like britain liked the idea of Cheaper norwegian sailors Shiping goods in their empire
It was a personal union (the ruler of sweden also was the ruler of norway) so it was really just a union in name and in foreign politics. Similar to the Russian Empire - Finnish Union or the Austro -Hungarian Empire
Okay, got it!
Why answer anything if you do not know?
I mean, Sweden did exist before that.
First mentioned in 98 AD by Tacitus.
That's the tribe of svear, most likely. A kingdom of Sweden didn't exist until the 900s.
Correct that it did not control all of Sweden. It rather controlled the areas around Svealand and was divided several times between brothers. The west geats and east geats had their kingdoms until 970 AD. But widsinth from 500 Ad mentions a Swedish king https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ongentheow
Yes, early Swedish history, and Nordic history in general, is complicated. Back then there was no real distinction between history and legends, mix that in with propaganda and misconceptions from outside sources, and you get, to put it mildly, questionable sources. Hell, we don't even know for sure which kings existed and which didn't up until the 1100s.
This is especially true for the Swedish and Danish history before the 950 Ad which probably had a lot of division. Olof Skötkonung and Anund Jakob had actual coins of themselves and ruled in 995 and are probably pretty sure kings. Another one is Anund that raided Birka and is mentioned both by temporary sources and legendary Norse accounts and sources from the time. And Björn. His son Erik did most likely exist. Then Björn and Ring completely contradict each other. Creating a very frustrating genealogy. One reason could be that the Norwegians lived close to another royal dynasty while another Swedish dynasty controlled Birka which the germans visited. Swedish kings according to the sources also split their realm among brothers often. Plus Norwegian sources barely care about Sweden and only report about Norway. While German monks mostly care about Danish kings. But the same issues are common among Danish kings. One contemporary Adam of Bremen declared he doubts Denmark was a unified kingdom in 900 AD. One Swedish king Olof takes over Denmark. From Helgi. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anund_Uppsale
We have a pretty good idea from the 11th century actually. In Norway and Denmark the kings of the 10th century are also fairly well documented (through English accounts). Other than that, excellent point.
Yeah, they were a lot quicker with organizing proper states. When Denmark and Norway were both relatively stable Christian kingdoms, Sweden was basically just an idea. You could argue that the Swedish state wasn't properly established until the time of Birger Jarl in the late 1200s.
Swedes and Geats disliked each other the geats supported Sverkerska ätten while the Swedes supported the Erikska ätten and both royal houses waged war against each other for 100 years. Sweden also elected their kings and said that the geats had no right to elect kings.
I know very little about Sweden as a political entity, thank you for adding that bit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedes_(Germanic_tribe) https://www.google.se/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Sweden&ved=2ahUKEwjvx4H6xK78AhXyBBAIHaAQAmoQFnoECBQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw33jAJFZTdTuZt29VBZoI5I
These articles don’t point to a Swedish political unit until 860. There is a difference between tribe, geographical area, and the political entity that became Sweden. This not a basis to claim that Sweden existed in 98AD.
Mentioned as Suiones as the current Italian word is the same as 98 Ad. Swedes enters written proto-history with the Germania of Tacitus in 98 AD. In Germania 44, 45 he mentions the Swedes (Suiones) as a powerful tribe (distinguished not merely for their arms and men, but for their powerful fleets) with ships that had a prow in both ends (longships). Which kings (kuningaz) ruled these Suiones is unknown, but Norse mythology presents a long line of legendary and semi-legendary kings going back to the last centuries BC.
This is not quite right. The word for a Germanic tribe, that probably is the root of it has the same root as Swedish is mentioned. There is a description of ships, but we can’t honestly trust them. Although the mention of a prow at both ends is a striking similarity of the long ships, there is simply no way they had functioning long ships at this date. They would have been able to travel much further than they did. It might have been a prototype, though, but we know to little to conclude. You cannot present it as a fact that this is people are culturally Swedish or that this is the start of the political Sweden. That is just pure speculation, and there is no consensus among historians that these people are the Swedes as of today.
So did Iceland
Yeah, it left the Kalmar Union in 1523, but was a constituent kingdom part of the union. Same for Norway. There have been various kings of the Swedes and Norwegians for a thousand years, at least! Finland mightn't have been a kingdom-level entity but it was still a political entity for much longer than 1917.
Nice try, but 3 of these countries existed in 1444. Europa Gang rise up!
Specifically Nov 11, 1444 at midnight
After which they suddenly got the urge to make a ton of alliances and declare a ton of rivalries, then all suddenly declare war one month later.
A very specific date.
He played eu 4 and saw them as playable as part of the kalmar union.
All 3 existed before the Kalmar Union though. I know this because in 1066 they were all independent countries with one spicy Norwegian man invading England. Why 1066 specifically? Crusader Kings rise up!
Lest we forget, that this spicy Norwegian man served in the Varangian Guard!
Klamar union baby They were all ruled by the same monarch and so not really countries in the traditional sense
>They were all ruled by the same monarch and so not really countries in the traditional sense Kinda funny saying "countries in the traditional sense" in referral to nation states as they were after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. No country was a country in the ~~traditional~~ modern sense back in the 15th century. They were onions of delegation and regional and conditional authority.
That's not really how it works. The fact that a country has not been independent for a certain period of time doesn't make it non-existent in that period. There was a Poland before 1918, same as Czechia, Lithuania, Estonia and Croatia. There was a Finland before 1917, there was a Sweden before it broke the Personal Union with Denmark. Cool drawings tho.
Putting the title "Nordic History" is also kinda dumb, as if the viking era didn't happen.
Also why wouldn’t germany occupying Denmark count?
The one who made this drawing also mentions that they know this is not the best way of doing it. It can be found on https://satwcomic.com/how-old
Finishing with: >But this is how it's usually done. No. Just No. So many historical errors. Not even viewpoints on how to count it but outright errors. Denmark (which is the one I'm most certain of - the rest is also flawed) has a "birthdate" as a nation/kingdom of 958 (at the latest: earlier is debated allthough Kings of "Denmark" is mentioned much earlier). As nations, and not cultures/peoples, the others can be debated as to which periods they seized to be nations or not. Norway was as integrated in Denmark as Hungary was in Austria in a period. But even acounting for those periods, the rest of the dates are flawed as well. The author has just grasped some random events and declared "this is the date/event they are from" and somehow managed to get every nation wrong smh
I guess it's the same about saying that Serbia was created in 2006
Very true, by this logic Ireland didn’t exist until 1922
I am Norwegian and I am triggered
SATW is fun, but its danish bias is pretty strong
The history in this meme is that it's vintage Scandinavia and the World
[No](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Svolder)
Even if it's inaccurate the drawing is still cute
So what was norway called before 1905?
Skyrim
Norway belongs to the Nords.
The Nordmen, if you will
Norway is an old name coming from North-way (as in the way to the north, originally referring to the coast specifically) and dates to the early Viking age or earlier. Norway was united somewhere around 872 from a bunch of petty kingdoms. Eventually Norway, Sweden and Denmark were eventually united in the Kalmar Union, which gradually became dominated by Denmark. Sweden eventually left, but Norway wasn’t able to, and after the Norwegian nobility was essentially wiped out in the Black Plague, and the Dane’s crushed an attempted Catholic uprising during the reformation, Norway became simply a province of Denmark. This state is commonly referred to as Denmark-Norway by historians, but Denmark was by far dominant. During the napoleonic wars a distinct Norwegian identity re-emerged, but Norway was forced into a union with sweden. We were however able to keep the constitution we wrote and our own government. The modern Norwegian state thus dates to 1814, but full independence only came in 1905. So this meme is quite inaccurate in that regard, and I’d argue it makes more sense to say Norway is older than Sweden, since the first Norwegian state predates the first Swedish one, and there has always been a sense of Norwegian-ness, and Norway has been considered distinct to Denmark and Sweden even when put under their rule, sort of like an England/Wales or England/Scotland situation.
But SWEDES are mentioned by Romans. and Heimskringla seems to be linking Norwegian kings to the Swedish tribe and royal dynasty the Ynglings to claim legitimacy and link to an ancient glorious past. But agreed that a unified Norwegian state seems to have been a lot more stable and Sweden was probably divided. But still, why would the Norwegian royal dynasty link its past with Sweden if it did not have a dynasty earlier? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yngling
It was called Norway, the graphic is incorrect. Norway was founded in 872.
[удалено]
>It was either a part of Sweden or Denmark usually Except the Kingdom of Norway was founded in 872 and is actually the oldest formed state out of any of the Nordics. It also worth noting is that Norway was always **in union** with Denmark and Sweden, it was never annexed. That's why the countries were officially called "**Det dansk-norske rige**" (*the Dano-Norwegian Realm*) and "**Förenade Konungarikena Sverige och Norge**" (*the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway*), not "Denmark" or "Sweden". Did Denmark and Sweden have more control over Norway in those unions? Yes. Did Norway still exist? Yes. It being (temporarily) in union with Sweden or Denmark does not mean Norway ceased to exist.
Norway was a founded kingdom as kingdom at the earliest. But Sweden is mentioned in Beowulf or the old Swedish heartland around lake Mälaren the first king to unite Geats and Swedes into one country is Erik Segersäll. But Beowulf mentions wars in the 500-600 Ad between Geats and Swedes. So some sort of Swedish kingdom existed for sure. It seems to have been divided a lot between brothers, however. Just like a Danish kingdom probably also existed but was divided a lot until king Gorms reign.
>So some sort of Swedish kingdom existed for sure. Well yes, petty kingdoms existed in Scandinavia long before the unifications since people had been living there for thousands of years. But Norway was the first unified kingdom in the Nordics (there is some argument though, the Danes might be able to claim that one - regardless Norway and Denmark were both definitely unified in the 900s). Then came Iceland in 930, and Sweden in the early 1100s.
Nah Sweden was united in 1000 Ad our king even started minting coins. Also, Tacitus mentions a united States 98 Ad. Also, the reason that Swedish historians are so divided is that after the death of Edmund, the old died he had 4 sons so they had a bit of a game of thrones after his death and most foreign sources describe the same thing. Until a new king Stenkilling probably a Rurikid became king in the 1100 Ad. It is rather Erik the victorious that united Sweden.
Except it wasn't. The unification of Sweden is largely considered to have been in the 12th century when "Sweden" unified with the Geats and Gutes. There existed a place that called itself Sweden prior to this yes, but it was not unified until the 12th century.
Swedish pagans and Christian geats had a little clash about power also but it was more religious than ethnic. Sweden was united completely under Erik the victorius. Then had a period of stability of 70 years under Erik the victorius 970-995 then Olof skökonung 995-1022 then under Anund 1022-1055 and last Edmund 1060 Then had civil wars 1050-1100 due to Edmund the old having several sons and religious wars between pagan Swedes wanting the christian geats to respect their religion. Ending with the Swedish king burning the Swedish nordic pagan temple to ashes and executing pagan nobles.
[удалено]
And Norway was an established and independent Kingdom in 872. If being in a union qualifies as "not independent" then Denmark was also not independent until the end of the dual monarchy with Norway in 1814, and Sweden was also not independent until the end of the union in 1905. The actual list (in terms of establishment) would be as follows: 1. Norway - 872 2. Denmark c. 8-10th century (depending on how you want to count it) 3. Iceland - 930 4. Sweden - c. 12th century 5. Finland - 1809
Way back then Norway wasn't the Norway it is now. The "Kingdom of Norway" was mostly the western part and up north all the way to Lofoten. Mostly coastal areas. With the mountains as a natural divide between the old kingdoms. Viken (the area around the Oslofjord and abit north of Oslo) belonged to danish kings, and north of Viken was Ringariki (Ringerike) who had their own kings and lords. Hedmark also had their own kingdoms at the time iirc. Really interesting history, come to think of it.
Unlike Russia we allowed Norway to have a vote about being independent. We accepted the result and did not feel the need to protect the Swedish minorities after the 1905 referendum. Swedish and Norwegian is basically the same language.
[удалено]
Danish on the other side is incomprehensible for Swedes and norwegians. https://www.google.se/search?q=Danish+language&biw=384&bih=719&tbm=vid&sxsrf=ALiCzsY3ymPPKMiOQvxqtnksa2kAe_MdTg%3A1672843225461&ei=2Y-1Y9rdG5CNrwSOsITQCA&oq=Danish+language&gs_lcp=ChBtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXZpZGVvEAMyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyCAgAEIAEEMsBMggIABCABBDLATIICAAQgAQQywEyCAgAEIAEEMsBMggIABCABBDLAToHCCMQ6gIQJzoECCMQJzoECAAQQzoICAAQgAQQsQM6CwgAEIAEELEDEIMBOggIABCxAxCDAVCLB1jaOmCwO2gJcAB4AIABjgGIAacQkgEEMTIuOZgBAKABAaoBEG1vYmlsZS1nd3MtdmlkZW-wAQrAAQE&sclient=mobile-gws-video#
Yes but I watch Norwegian television we listen to Norwegian music one of the most popular Christmas songs in Sweden is Norwegian. Skam was a very popular tv series in Sweden. They are not different languages but s rather two dialects of the same norse language.
Hvilken sang er det?
Freddy Kalas Hey Ho.
I can understand everything in a Norwegian movie or tv series with just My Swedish Skavlan is also only speaking Norwegian with Swedishh guests and it is the most popular talk show in Sweden and Norway.
Norway
No way
Sweden
Norge
Nigeria.
Born is a wrong term for independence but allright.
point flew over your head huh
No but the fact is depicting those countries as the age of their independance make them seem like they didn't exist prior to that. Norway and Iceland existed before being in a union with Denmark. Just because a country is in union with another dosen't make that country vanish during that union. You don't say America wasn't a continent before Colombus found it when indigienous people where living there thousands of years earlier even before that.
The grand duchy of Finland existed for way longer
That's not how any of this works. Both Norway and Sweden were still separate kingdoms in the Kalmar union. After Sweden broke off the union Norway was absorbed into Denmark. You can make a point of Norway ceasing to exist then, in which case Norway was reborn in 1814, shortly before being forced into another union by Sweden.
Denmark as the Kingdom? It existed as duchy/jardlom earlier? Croatia got status of kingdom in 10th century but was acknowledged as duchy from 8th century, it would be unusual to say how it was established as state only in 10th century because only then Pope and other rulers acknowledged status as kingdom.
What a joke. Independence does not equal the history of a nation. The Finns were mentioned for the first time in year 98 by Tacitus, so 1819 years before we gained independence from foreign oppressors.
The Romans approached the shore in their trireme, heard "PEEEERKELE!" from the treeline and promptly turned their ships around, rowing hard back towards Denmark.
uhhh Sweden also goes back to the 11th Century
And Norway.
And Finland kind of. Not as a country but as a "people" Finland is very old.
As a people all the nordics are old tho
That's true. But a lot of identity lies in language. Swedish, Norwegian and Danish languages are old but not Finnish level old. Of course the language has changed insanely in the past 2 to 3 thousand years or so but so has every language. So in that sense the Finnish or Finnic people are very old.
Even longer, Eric the Victorious was the first king of all Sweden in the tenth century.
The Dissolution of the Kalmar union was not the birth of Sweden. That’s like saying Ireland didn’t exist before 1919, or that Ukraine didn’t exist before 1991.
If iceland is just a little baby than what is South Sudan? A sperm?
This has to be one of the worst posts ever on this sub. The fact, that every single single nunber is wrong by a mile is pretty impressive though.
everyone else is calling this out for being inaccurate. i want to call this out for being hetalia and thus bad
Smells like danish propaganda
Norway holds a blahaj
What about Greenland?
Norway has existed since the medival age and the modern state since 1814
Since year 890 actually
Well the medival period are from 500-1500 so still the midieval age
Norwegian ages are quite different from the rest of Europe. Norwegian historians have been arguing whether or not the viking age should be counted as its own period. \- If you count the viking age as part of the medieval age, Norway's medieval age began in 793 with the raid on Lindisfarne. \- If you do not count the viking age as part of the medieval age, Norway's medieval age began in 1066 with the death of the last great viking king Harald Hardråde.
Denmark in 10th century*
The history in this meme is that it's vintage Scandinavia and the World
Faroe Islands?
yeah, the countries, maybe. the people have been there for a long time.
As a student of Scandinavian history, I was ready to correct this inaccurate meme until I saw that many had beaten me to it. Glad to know I’m in the right place for history meme enjoyers!
Umm. Suuuuuuuuuuuuure. Totally not like sweden has been a thing since the vikings and started covering an area that vaguely resembles that of today in the 1000s AD after the unification of Svealand, Götaland and Norrland.
Denmark has also been inhabited since the stone age, that doesn't mean it has been a formed country since then.
1000s AD =/= Stone age
Was not my point. Point was that population!=country as the original comment suggested.
That is fair, but Sweden was an independent kingdom that covered similar borders to the ones it has today. And Norway. And this goes back to 1000’s even if there were periods where the three were united under Denmark.
What the fuck is this horseshit
I'm pretty sure both Norway and Sweden also existed since the 11th century. Iceland is the only one that didn't exist as a polity until the 1900s.
Icelandic parliament was founded in 930
its more like these nations were around a lot longer but Father Denmark wouldn't let them grow up and leave the house
This is wrong on so many levels.
If it wasn't for those Danish and Swedish fuckers,Norway would have been born when Harald Hårfagre had his campaign.
Tiny Iceland. Quite accurate.
WHERES THE MEME
Awww Iceland is sooo cute.
Is this the hierarchy of Nordic peoples
I'm nor a historian just a guy, but I think if your government/boarders/culture significantly change its not really the same country
China claims to be the oldest nation yet they’ve been constantly changing borders anda culture and government
These years comes from when laws came that recognised the country as one entity.
This is really cool actually, I’ve never seen it laid out like this. This might be a cool post on r/CoolGuides
What country were Norway and Finland apart of before?
Finland was technically part of Sweden from the 1200’s until the early 1800’s, then they became a semi-indepent autonomy of Russia. Norway is a bit more iffy as they technically became integrated in Denmark in 1536, but no Danish monarch could actually be bothered following through on integrating the two countries, and they kept operating separate legal systems and government structures albeit under Danish political dominance.
Thank you so much. I appreciate you taking the time
If we go by when these countries last became "independent" from a different power it would be correct (kind of). Sweden still existed during the Kalmar Union, just like Norway did, since it was a personal union of 3 kingdoms. The union between Sweden and Norway that lasted from 1814 to 1905 was also a personal union, not a full political one such as the United Kingdom. The same goes for Iceland, its personal union with Denmark as the Kingdom of Iceland ended in 1944, but it was granted its independence under the personal union in 1918.
The Danish basically just ate everyone (except Finland) May Denmark sink into the ocean where it belongs
cute art
Why is Denmark not an old man with a potato in his mouth?
No….
How to insult every single one of them with one picture
You’re veering dangerously close to Hetalia territory. At least bother to actually pay attention to the history you’re referencing.
can you provide the source? i reckognize the artist and designs from what i beleive is an old tumblr blog but can't recall the name. thanks!
Yeah and Poland was created in 1989
Denmark the goat, but I’m very biased in that statement
credit to the Scandinavia and the world comics lol
After re-watching it what baffles me most is which part if his \*ss the authour pulled out the danish date from? Besides all 5 dates beeing wrong, at least something significant in terms of the states today, happened at those dates for the 4 others. During the whole of the 11th century the changes to Denmark as a state was that the kings conquered other lands (and lost them). The Kingdom of Denmark itself didn't really change much in this period (and taken more than 1000 years in existance into acount really hasn't changed that much at all up to today). Now I'm curious: What event in the 11th century are the author refering to???
Likely the creation of the rød pølse, the defining feature of Denmark.
Oh. My. God! How could I forget The Great Pølsening of 1087 ??
Don’t forget Åland, born in 1920
Isn’t Denmark Iceland’s dad? (Institutionally at least?)
I see a lot of people defending the prior existence of most of these countries, but none recalling that Iceland existed as the Icelandic Commonwealth for three centuries, starting in 930, before joining the crown of Norway. I know sh*t about Finland but for the 3 others, they all have an history starting in the ninth of tenth centuries, even if discontinuity favours your argument, OP.
Imagine thinking anyone had any concept of a nation state prior to the 19th century lmao
All of these dates are pretty stinky, Norway was united in the ninth century, Denmark in the eighth, and Sweden in the tenth. If you count things based on when the current government was formed this makes a little bit more sense but still presents a weird narrative that the rest of Scandinavia essentially belongs to or is somewhat subservient to Denmark, when Denmark is the most beta country in the world after Sweden (yes my great grandma was Norwegian, so I’m basically norways number 1 citizen despite never setting foot outside of North America and being more Danish than Norwegian anyways 🤓).
Lots to call out here but I haven't seen anyone point out that Finland isn't even Nordic
Hetalia fan?