At the turn of the century, Norway had one of the largest trading ship fleets in the world. Norway was by no means a third world country in regards to wealth. It's just that with the discovery of oil the vast difference made it seem like Norway was dirt poor while in fact it was not.
@MagnsATK98
2 жыл бұрын
As a Norwegian I really enjoyed this video! Even though this video was about how Norway wasn't a great power later on (which is true), you made sure to mention what Norway managed to acheive early on and that it was regionally capable at the time, which I appreciate.
@DJPJ.
2 жыл бұрын
As a Norwegian i agree with your statment.
@PotatoKing147
2 жыл бұрын
As a Norwegian too, couldn't agree more. It made me a little sad to see what we lost and why, but it made me feel much better by saying what we did accomplish.
@trustme3110
2 жыл бұрын
But Norway cheated Denmark, when. they were signing the sea border. Norwegian make Danish delimitation drunk and make them sign the sea border in favour of them, later they discover huge amount of oil in the same region of the sea.
@PotatoKing147
2 жыл бұрын
@@trustme3110 They took Greenland and the Fareo Islands from us, so I think that's more than fair.
@steinarbergstl5799
2 жыл бұрын
@@trustme3110 If the Danes couldn't keep from getting drunk during important negitiations I rather think that's on them and not our fault. :)
@zenerobloodaxe
2 жыл бұрын
A fun fact, I come from a Norwegian family, "I am also partially polish and dutch" but my norwegian family has owne a farmed since the 1800's, this farm has history dated back to 1300's when the black plague left it abandoned, it got remade into a priestfarm or whatever you say in english, and was named after the first guy to begin the recleaning of it, "ulf" so the farm is now named Ulverød after him. Funny how some places can hold so much history, and to think you can walk among the trees as they did
@Regenbogenzwerg
2 жыл бұрын
"Prestegård" is the norwegian term for a priestfarm.
@zenerobloodaxe
2 жыл бұрын
@@Regenbogenzwerg Takk skal du ha, glemte det når jeg skrev dette ^^
@alexpotts6520
2 жыл бұрын
I think modern Norwegians would happily concede "never being a major power" while remaining at the top of the world rankings for equality, democracy, stability, standard of living and ease of doing business.
@adelarsen9776
2 жыл бұрын
We're pretty good.
@chevyjohnson7457
2 жыл бұрын
Nah, i wish Norway was a great power. But our population is too low
@PMMagro
2 жыл бұрын
having loads off oil and share the riches over a small population is quite a "skill" obviously. Seriously though Norway has hadnled it's oil fiotues great which shows in statistics...
@edvardbookbratbak5473
2 жыл бұрын
@@PMMagro the oil is actually not the reason for us to be best at all those things tho..
@alexpotts6520
2 жыл бұрын
@@PMMagro That must explain why democracy is flourishing in Saudi Arabia and business is booming in Venezuela 🤔
@tessjuel
2 жыл бұрын
I understand you couldn't cover every little detail in such a short video but there is one common misconception hat should be corrected. Norway had a strong economy (and a well developed public health care system) even before the oil. The country had the 10th highest GDP per capita as early as 1917, mainly because ot the merchant fleet (which was the fourth biggest in the world) but fishing and forestry were also major export businesses. There's a reason why the common spruce is named "norway spruce" in English and why the Spanish/Portuguese national dish bacalao/bachalhau is made from and named after a Norwegian fish. Later an abundance of hydroelectric power made Norway a major nation in high energy industry, such as aluminum and artificial fetilizer production. Norway was also lucky enough to make it through world war 2 with fairly minor damage compared to most nations. This gave it a head start when the rebuilding began in 1945. This is one of the three main reasons why Norway was able to handle the oil income so well and why it could resist the pressure from the big international oil corporations. There was enough money around it didn't need foreign investors, nor was there an urgent need for the oil income. So rather than sell off the oil rights for a quick buck, the country could afford to slowly build its own oil industry and rather than spend the profit on "daily expenses", it oculd afford to invest in the future.
@norwegianboyee
2 жыл бұрын
Basically we're not like the Middle Eastern Oil Sheiks that splurge their wealth on expensive and ostentatious cities and landmarks that will rust and fall apart short moments after the oil wells run dry and the country collapses from the imminent crisis because all of the corrupt officials would have left by then.
@jk-gb4et
2 жыл бұрын
@@norwegianboyee Its not just the Middle Eastern "Oil Sheik(h)" countries though, the same happened with places in Africa, with Malaysia, with Russia and even my province of Canada in Alberta
@REDnBLACKnRED
2 жыл бұрын
@@norwegianboyee resource rich countries always end up in shitty situations whether in the east or west or middle on anywhere on earth, Norway is one of the rare few exception. And the comment above explains why very well. It was already doing fine without oil, so when the resource was found, it could handle it well.
@Thendoril25
2 жыл бұрын
This 100%. In addition, in the age of sail, Norway also had a strong navy as well as a strong merchant navy, that it funneled money into to avoid paying a lot of tax to Denmark. Essentially a "Oh we're so poor we cant pay you all that gold you want, what do you mean theres 3 new massive ships in the harbour? nooo dont look that way look at our empty wallets!"
@REDnBLACKnRED
2 жыл бұрын
@@Thendoril25 I think the issue is that Scandinavian countries are never looked at in isolation, they are always compared to each other, and in comparison to Sweden and Denmark it didn't look impressive in history (mostly because it was ruled by them and likely enriched Stockholm and Copenhagen as a result). But of course the tables have turned today!
@ladahieno2382
2 жыл бұрын
Sweet little video, thank you very much for talking about Norway :3
@rubenschilling
2 жыл бұрын
f your comment got copied by a verified account
@ladahieno2382
2 жыл бұрын
@Safwaan dealt with it
@ladahieno2382
2 жыл бұрын
@Safwaan it is gone
@projectember728
2 жыл бұрын
Finally he’s covering the longest country in Scandinavia:)
@tricksterno9247
2 жыл бұрын
You forgot to meantion that WRITING WENT EXTINCT in Norway because of the nobility dying from the black plague. We literally lost all the people with education.
@aeneas9259
2 жыл бұрын
I find this hard to believe.
@tricksterno9247
2 жыл бұрын
@@aeneas9259well not entirely extict but like basically extinct. Its even part of school here in Norway. That Norwegian writing died out and was replaced by danish since there were so noone that could write in norwegian. And those that could switched to danish. It wasnt until late 1700s that a norwegian writing system was established. 2 was actually established and they still bicker between which is the true norwegian writing system. Forgot to add yeah there were the clergy that could write in latin but most of they died to leaving danish clergy to move in so norwegian writing went extinct
@aeneas9259
2 жыл бұрын
@@tricksterno9247 Well, I'm quite sure that not all of the nobles died from the plague, and furthermore, that there would have been more than a few people that were not nobles that could also read and write and that also didn't all die from the plague. So the picture you seemed to be painting with your first comment, of the plague resulting in a completely illiterate society, is not very accurate. But it's probably true that there was a marked decline in the use of written Norwegian (which by the way was a very different language in the 14th century compared to the one spoken in Norway today) as the country came under Danish rule.
@aeneas9259
2 жыл бұрын
@Kerberos The nobles didn't all die, but the ratio of people to arable land decreased a lot, which resulted in a sharp decline in the ability of the nobles / landowners to "tax" would be farmers. This in turn decreased the ability of the nobles to raise armies and wage war, which I guess is one of the reasons why Norway came under Danish rule.
@Diddiwehy
2 жыл бұрын
I have never in my life heard this before, but I remember reading in a museum that a effective way to build houses with as least resources needed. For example to build a decent stabbur you need ''9 medium long trees'' while in this effective way of building house you need only 4-5.
@floro7687
2 жыл бұрын
When the last of the old Norwegian kings, Håkon the 6th. died in 1380 while he was king of Norway, Sweden and Denmark his widow, daughter of the Danish king Valdemar Atterdag moved to Copenhagen when her only son, Olav died in 1387. She brought with her the administration. That is how Norway came under Denmark.
@robinsinpost
2 жыл бұрын
Håkon the 6th was not king of Sweden when he died in 1380. He was king of Sweden from 1362 to 1364 while he was king of Norway from 1343 to 1380. Nor was he king of Denmark when he died, his son was and had been king of Denmark from 1376. . That is why his son, Olav Håkonsson, became king of Norway and Denmark when Håkon the 6th died. That is how Norway came under Denmark.
@davidbresson8716
2 жыл бұрын
@@robinsinpost true. Margaret defeated the Swedish King Albrecht in 1389 and became the Queen of Sweden.
@UlverEos
2 жыл бұрын
@@davidbresson8716 good grief, you all get a little star for your hard work in quoting books!
@vendist
2 жыл бұрын
@@davidbresson8716 You might want to add that Albrecht was originally from Mecklenburg, Germany and had been made king by Swedish noblemen that revolted against their lawful King. When these same noblemen later wanted to also get rid of their "German" King they needed help and so approached Denmark asking them to assist in this new rebellion. A bit of a mess all of it really.
@CraftsmanOfAwsomenes
2 жыл бұрын
Skipped Sweden taking Trøndelag and later trading it for Skåne for brevity I guess. Really I think a lot of Norway’s initial success can be chalked up to the early unification giving it more relative power in the short term which later decreased as its neighbors with more geographical advantages conglomerated.
@MagnsATK98
2 жыл бұрын
I would say Norway's early success rather had to do with having a population (particularily in the west) that was prone to settle and dominate trade in the North Atlanitic only later to come under full control of the Monarchy. A reason is that ships were the lifeblood of people along the west coast, settlements scattered across the fjords were completely dependent on ships for trade and food, even to reach nearby towns would be harder by land than by sea, so most people had capable boats. Norway stayed independent with most of its overseas possessions for hundreds of years while both Sweden and Denmark were unified too, all the way until the Kalmar Union. They were for most of that time on par with the other two.
@boreopithecus
2 жыл бұрын
It wasn’t traded for Skåne, Skåne and Trøndelag were both taken in the Roskilde peace treaty in 1658. Sweden attacked again shortly after but more powers intervened and they weren’t as successful and in the Copenhagen peace treaty of 1660 had to return Trøndelag and Bornholm.
@nordicnostalgia8106
2 жыл бұрын
Don't forget that Harald Hardråde was quite a rich badass, though
@LordDim1
2 жыл бұрын
Think you’re undercutting how powerful Norway was in the 1200s. King Haakon IV, generally seen as king during the absolute pinnacle of Norwegian power in the mid-1200s, was a major European political player. He was at one point even offered the crown of Holy Roman Emperor by the pope, but declined
@ItzLucky90
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah
@kadash7126
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah but thats like 800 years ago, for the time since, Norway was ruled over by others that's the point of the video.
@LordDim1
2 жыл бұрын
@@kadash7126 He specifically touched upon Norway in the 1200s, I’m saying that when he did he undercut its power
@kadash7126
2 жыл бұрын
@@LordDim1 Yeah, true. What you're saying in this comment are fun facts that are good to know nonetheless.
@klauslunde
2 жыл бұрын
akurat i agree
@modelnanpresident
2 жыл бұрын
Awesome video!
@krisspyCreeme
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for interesting content
@MrElmi
2 жыл бұрын
Tl;DR They weren't a great power because of the plaque, lack of farmable land and the inability to expand
@Tukeuvian
2 жыл бұрын
Very good and informative video
@aetu35
2 жыл бұрын
norway has too little people
@duckles426
2 жыл бұрын
norway has two little people
@haystackhider7158
2 жыл бұрын
@@duckles426 norway has two midgets
@eivindmosesen767
2 жыл бұрын
@@duckles426 please accept this crown 👑
@jamesatholsteel1948
2 жыл бұрын
IMO this is not a problem in Norway, where if anything the people are quite large.
@stevencooper4422
2 жыл бұрын
@@haystackhider7158 Norway has double dwarfs
@Birkebeiner1066
2 жыл бұрын
as a Norwegian, I ask myself this question every time I wake up
@ivandinsmore6217
2 жыл бұрын
You should make a video about Poland during the Black Death.
@user-wr8wp7zf6m
2 жыл бұрын
Great job as always. I really appreciate all the research you put in your videos. Btw, is there gonna be a part two to your alternate history of Russia. I'm curious as to what the world would look like if the tsardom endured. Keep up the good work!
@marfesasto9252
2 жыл бұрын
Interesting topic! I can recommend Slagsbrødre eller broderfolk by Lars hovbeck,if anyone is interested in the dynamic relationship between the Scandinavian countries the past millennium. I think it’s translated into English.
@Menalix
2 жыл бұрын
What I really respect though, is Norway actually tried fighting back when Hitler invaded.
@TTTT-oc4eb
2 жыл бұрын
Well, Norway is a defender's paradise (even more so in 1940 with few and bad roads), while Denmark is a defenders nightmare. If Norway had been just half-way prepared, nobody would have dared to invade us (well, perhaps except Stalin). The invasion was a disaster for Norway and Operation FUBAR for the British/French/Polish forces - but also a near-disaster for the Germans. The first invasion fleet carried less than 10,000 soldiers and would have been easily beaten if we had been prepared. At Narvik the Germans were saved by the bell - when Wehrmacht invaded France and the Low Countries.
@DamirKajtazKladusa
2 жыл бұрын
Good video.
@isabellahello123
2 күн бұрын
Make more about Sweden cause we are the best
@musiqtee
2 жыл бұрын
A really nice presentation, thanks! 👍 BTW, 🇸🇪, 🇩🇰, 🇫🇮 and 🇮🇸, what about rebooting the Kalmar Union…? Oh, the 🇪🇺… well… Greetings from 🇳🇴…😅
@alfstoygamingenglish-enter3885
2 жыл бұрын
Us norway be like: We Are Rich we Are atleast best in something in scnandanavia
@DainHunter
2 жыл бұрын
We are also the lead producer of salmon and trout in the world. Meaning that we are a big provider of sushi :)
@cranklabexplosion-labcentr8245
2 жыл бұрын
And black metal
@beorlingo
2 жыл бұрын
As a Swede I hate to mention it, but now there's also the upcoming Winter Olympics. The Norwegians dance to the OL-floka every four years. 🙄
@legominer321
2 жыл бұрын
@@DainHunter and second biggest fish exporter
@humphreygokart2135
2 жыл бұрын
Brilliant. Thanks.
@jomar_sl
11 ай бұрын
There is a slight misconseption that Norway was poor. Compared to other european countries at the same time, living standards were never bad. Even after the black plague. Losing 60% of the population meant empty farms free to distribute for the remaining 40%. Norway always had abundance of resources. Fishing and whaling has always been important, but also lumber export has historically been very important. England more or less ran out of wood, while Norway kept getting overgrown. That made a steady trade.
@norsk7607
2 жыл бұрын
Good video
@bonktheolebrag9103
2 жыл бұрын
i have a questin, are you danish? (;
@rubenschilling
2 жыл бұрын
he is
@thePersonoyt
2 жыл бұрын
Been here since 1k
@kib2675
2 жыл бұрын
The black plague and how it spread are still open for debate among researchers, but what we do now is that the death rate among those who were infected was very high and in some areas close to 100%. The difference in way of life had a great impact on the amount of people who were infected. In most of europe people lived in separate houses in cities and villages, while in more harsh environments people lived in longhouses, were the whole community and their livestock was the village. This was the case for all of Norway and parts of Sweden. This meant that when one person was infected everybody got it. So in Norway about 75% of the population died, but the prevalent theory is that the major part of survivors were also infected and survived. The country was in total chaos and open for grabs. However a lot of todays population can trace their ancestry to these survivors and during the AIDS scare it was found that 20-30% of the population in Norway and Sweden were immune, a lot higher than elsewhere, and probaly due to the plague. In Denmark the nobility and church kept their power over the people, while in Norway there was not enough people left to pay landlease and tax, so they generally lost their power and ability to structure the country. On the other hand refering to Denmark as a whole is a bit of scale. Jutland has allways been refered to as a provinse similar to Norway. So Norway was controled from Christiansborg, not from Denmark, and the public servants in Norway were all "sjællendere" like in Jutland
@historiepodden5197
2 жыл бұрын
Good job! o7
@legominer321
2 жыл бұрын
Imagine if the Black Plague never happened/came to norway. We would have so much more power and probably be the strongest Nordic country even today
@henrymicek4566
2 жыл бұрын
Norway imo had the best aspects to the sea. So while Denmark had the best land, and Sweden had the best expansion routes, Norway could possibly expand there. Maybe they could have been a minor colonizer if a few things went differently
@MariusAHovik
2 жыл бұрын
Interesting perspective on the historic timeline
@lilletrille1892
2 жыл бұрын
Færøyene, Iceland, Greenland and parts of Newfoundland were Norwegian colonies.
@erlendhansen5635
2 жыл бұрын
I think a missing factor in this exciting thesis of yours is the side effect of mountainous terrain. Just communication, in general, is a lot harder when you have to deal with mountains and dales/valleys on a daily basis. A quick example: A farmer who lives in norway; in year 1300s something, wants to talk about expanding his business with another farmer. They live 2kilometre apart. Not that long of a walk in countries like sweden or denmark because of the flat land, right? In norway that same walk would probably include walking down a steep inclined hill, crossing a river, or in worst case a fjord, and then hike up a steep hill aswell. Thats a microeconomic example. A similar example in a macro perspective. Norway 1300: A politician in Bergen wants to speak with a politician In Oslo(in person). The guy from bergen then has to cross an unforgiving amount of very steep mountains or sail 1/5 of Norways coastline to get to Oslo. I drove through Norway in a RV last year and boy oh boy did we stumble upon a shit ton of treacherous roads and gnarly, dim lit tunels despite norway having generally a good grip on infrastructure. Also, Norway was very rich before it got oil due to a strong merchant fleet. Look it up if whoever is reading this is interested.
@Kri13395
2 жыл бұрын
Today we are a great power at least economically. We have alot of say in decision making in some of the biggest companies in the world.
@iyaramonk
2 жыл бұрын
Another thing to add about nobility is that it still exists in a weakened form in Sweden today while in Norway it was abolished 200 years ago.
@jatojo
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the video. The plague theory seems weak.
@bobmalibaliyahmarley1551
2 жыл бұрын
''Never'' a great power is abit misleading? Well.. It was a great power, actually a ''super power'' for it's time, during and after the viking age, up to the 1200-1300s when about a good portion of the Norwegian population was killed off by the Black Plague. You can even see on the map (which I salute you for, because you've also added that here on the video) that a good portion of the land which is today considered Sweden, was actually Norwegian territory back then. Long story short: The Black Plague killed a good portion of the Norwegian population, the nobility and all its nobles fled to Sweden and as the ruling powers in Norway was weakened and gone, Sweden took over.
@TzOn79
2 жыл бұрын
Long live Sweden!
@hoolio5659
2 жыл бұрын
It wasnt a super power for its time either, during the viking age norway was mostly disunited until Harald Fairhair gathered Norway into a single kingdom, however this kingdom was also very disunited and it fell apart right after his death. Norway as a kingdom was never near a "super power" or even great power, especially if you count regarding conquests and wins over other great powers, which norway had few to boast of. Norway at its largest extent controlled some irish holdings, isle of man, shetland, orkney, scottish hebrides, iceland, greenland, jamtland, bohuslån and of course mainland norway. But all of these territories are not really noteworthy at all, neither in their acclamation or prosperity, and most of the holdings would be lost to the scottish, english and irish in one or two centuries. When we talk about after the viking age there is nothing resembling a great power here either, during the golden age Sigurd jorsalfare sailed to the holy land and went home, was a bit noteworthy as it was the first european king to do so, but nothing that would resemble a great power. And then civil war, and then black plague. So, no i would argue that norway ws never a great power, much in agreement with the video. Besides you failed to mention any reasons why norway would be a great power, you just mentioned that some territories belonged to sweden before it was lost during some wars the danish are responsible for. But that alone doesnt make anything a great power, because when they had the land you mentioned they were not a great power either.
@axdde6428
2 жыл бұрын
@@TzOn79 LÄNGE LEVE SVERIGE
@Diddiwehy
2 жыл бұрын
@@hoolio5659 Kind of agree, it was with no doubt a great regional power, but a superpower? No.
@swedichboy1000
2 жыл бұрын
Greetings from Sweden.
@juantamayo5295
2 жыл бұрын
Yay new Neatling video!!
@zlayd5146
2 жыл бұрын
kan du lave en video om de danske korstog
@JordanArabicAsmr
2 жыл бұрын
I wish I can visit Norway
@DainHunter
2 жыл бұрын
One time your wish will come true :) We have a lot of big fjords 😂 But our greatest accomplishment is Nidarosdomen, the grand cathedral where every new king gets crowned. Also the grave of the holy king Olav :)
@ivantubez3496
2 жыл бұрын
No stay home and look at pictures
@Lucas_Skywalker_
2 жыл бұрын
We’re all the same people, we shouldn’t fight. We have the same culture n more. We’re the Nordic Union💪🏼🇸🇪🇮🇸🇫🇮🇳🇴💪🏼
@WWIIfan12
2 жыл бұрын
There are som serious errors in this movie during the time Norway was a part of Sweden between 1814-1905. There was a personal union between Norway and Sweden, but Norway still had it's own parliment. And in the period 1840-1880 there was a strong period of building the Norwegian self image.
@peterzimmerman1114
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, nationalism was all the rage during that time period and displaying a national identity became a thing. Personally I find that kind of sad, especially the part about changing the language and adopting a dialect from a small remote village. All the things that keep humanity divided and cause more conflict points. Others did similar things, in Sweden the king invented a special set of clothing and declared it be the dress to best represent Sweden. Swedish ambassadors feelt really really REALLY awkward wearing the kings innovation. IT wasn't modern and I'm not sure if it was Swedish in anyway other than being the kings creation and idea of oldish traditional clothing, he thought it would make them seem older and more cultured and respectable. Such crazy nationalist and nationbuilding ideas rampaged through europe at the time. It's kind of liek that awkward guy who tries to be someone else in front of his would be girlfriend to try and be better than himself while coming across as and awkward idiot with poor selfesteem issues, thinking that will work out well...
@Neatling
2 жыл бұрын
Completely valid criticism, but I would like to point out you haven't mentioned any supposed errors. Just omitted information. My reasoning for leaving some things out is that this was supposed to be a short video that answers 1 fairly straightforward question. Not a full history of Norway. So unless I actually got something wrong I stand by the video. I do however appreciate you pointing out additional information people may find interesting if they want to learn more about Norwegian history, as this video obviously doesn't cover even close to everything.
@kjetiljohannes
2 жыл бұрын
Do not forget Norway managed to make a modern constitution in 1814 prior to the union with Sweden and managed to keep it during the union. The Norwegian constitution gave more power to the parliament than the contemporary Swedish (and essentially most countries perhaps the US excepted). Norway managed to build a maritime based economy relatively unhindered. And the Swedes (and kings) generally treated Norway well.
@hornvin
2 жыл бұрын
@@peterzimmerman1114 "changing the language and adopting a dialect from a small remote village" are you talking about Nynorsk ? If so, you are so wrong it borderlines embarrasing ... Changing the language was something everyone agreed upon, after 400 years of continious repress of the Norwegian language, forcably teaching people danish. Everyone was keen to have a Norwegian language, like before the 400 year night. Only way to find that was through dialects. As such, Nynorsk was created by gathering dialects from all over Norway, from Lindesnes in the south, to Tromsø in the North.
@AT-zk5ko
2 жыл бұрын
@@peterzimmerman1114 As a Western Norwegian who uses and I quote "changing the language and adopting a dialect from a small remote village." Wow you know next to nothing about our language history that "remote language" is a mix of all our dialects so we all would have a common language that represents more than just Christiania. Oh and your opinion about our nationalism? Kindly fuck off. Our nationalism made it able for us to recrate our national identity as a nation and as a people and unified us, gave us a selfworth and sense of belonging and as long as the mountains of Dovre stand so shall our nation.
@norwegian1234
Жыл бұрын
It’s simple - the geography in Norway splitting the people up alot more than in Sweden and Denmark. More tribes in Norway, alot of civil wars between all of them. It’s difficult to imagine how history would be if the landscape in Norway didn’t split the Norwegian tribes as much as it has.
@teemo8247
2 жыл бұрын
This channel is a haven for geography nerds, ESPECIALLY for Scandinavians lol
@Pederlykke123
2 жыл бұрын
Im from Norway but i really want to be English so just speck English to me Im good in it!
@alriktyrving5051
2 жыл бұрын
According to the Old Norse Sagas, Sweden and Denmark was actually unified before Norway. As related in Heimskringla by Snorri Sturluson Harald Fairhair proposed to a girl named Gyda, but she refused to marry a petty king such as him. If Harald would come to rule over all of Norway though, just as Erik ruled over all of Sweden and Gorm over all of Denmark, she would accept him. Harald then took an oath, never to cut his hair until he had accomplished this task, which he did at the end of the ninth century. Sweden was unified about 200 years earlier according to the sagas, when a king named Ingjald Illready violently killed off all the petty kings there. Ingjald was himself killed later on and his son Olaf had to flee westwards as the old dynasty was replaced, But from Olaf however descended the above Harald Fairhair who became the first king of Norway.
@ratardobatardo
2 жыл бұрын
Amazing video! One small error though: Norway wasnt poor before they discovered oil, it actually had a better GFP per capita than both Denmark and Sweden because of their timber, mining and shipping industry. Oil just made them even richer:)
@aqidon
2 жыл бұрын
Unfortunately this is a common myth. Not only the industries you mentioned, there's also hydro power, artificial fertilizer and aluminium industry that made Norway richer in the early 20th century. And then it had already been on the rise for the entire 19th century due to the reasons you mentioned. Oil is just icing on the cake.
@Neatling
2 жыл бұрын
Not from what I could gather: unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/CountryProfile Wikipedia has the stats lined up nicely (look for 1970): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_projected_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita I used the UN estimates for GDP per capita in 1970, just after oil had been discovered in the North sea but before Norway had really begun extracting it. According to those estimates Norway was behind both Denmark and Sweden. I also looked at other sites: www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/GDP-per-capita-in-1950 Although I would trust the UN estimates more than Nationmaster lol. Let me know if there are sources that say otherwise but from what I can gather Norway was a bit behind economically until they started exporting oil in the 70's. I never said poor for the record, just poorer than Denmark and Sweden.
@ratardobatardo
2 жыл бұрын
@@Neatling it seems there are some conflicting sources. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita Following economist Paul Bairochs esitmates, Norway had a higher GDP per capita than Denmark and Sweden in 1938, however other sources says the opposite.
@aqidon
2 жыл бұрын
@@Neatling Since you only provided one link going back before the oil age I will use that one. Also I'm not debating weather or not Norway was behind specific countries, the question is weather or not Norway used to be poor. In 1820 when Norway was emerging economically Sweden and Denmark had 20% higher GDP than Norway. In other words Norway is in the ballpark of its neighbours and far ahead of the rest of the world. At the 1900 Norway had fallen behind significantly. However this is just before the industrialization of the early 20th century. Still Norway was not poor. Most of the world would be far behind. At the 1950 Norway is playing catch up after the war which had ruined Norway's shipping industry, Still Denmark is only 20% higher. This is in contast to the diffrence between scandinvia and the US. While the US has twice the GDP of norway Denmark with only 20% higher is concidered rich while Norway is "poor". I think its more akkurate to say that Norway and Denmark is not as rich as the US and Norway is not quite as rich as Denmark. But ballpark they are on the same level. I suggest having a look at gapminder to get a better understanding. Looking at the graph there it is very hard to pinpoint where in Norways upward trending GDP oil hit. The biggest contributor to higher GDP after oil hit is probably the massive contribution to the workforce women made. Well that and being efficient in general. www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$line$data$filter$dimensions$country$country$/$in@=nor&=rus&=usa&=nga&=chn&=dnk&=swe&=gbr&=esp&=deu;;;;;;&encoding$color$data$concept=country;&scale$type:null&domain:null&zoomed:null;;;;;;&chart-type=linechart&url=v1
@Neatling
2 жыл бұрын
@@aqidon Again; I didn't say Norway was poor. I said poorer than Denmark and Sweden. I completely agree; not quite as rich as Denmark but same ballpark. Oil and natural gas exports contributes 18% of Norwegian GDP (figure is from 2018) so I don't think it's all that inaccurate to say it had a big impact even if it wasn't the only factor. And currently without oil and natural gas Norway is behind Denmark economically and more comparable to Sweden (but slightly ahead still). On Gapminder Norway's economic rise above Denmark and Sweden seems to coincide perfectly with their ramping up of oil (and natural gas) exports. Did women join the workforce later in Norway than Denmark and Sweden? If not that argument doesn't really hold up. My point was never than Norway was poor, just that its discovery of oil and particularly that it nationalized it contributed significantly to its rise above Denmark and Sweden in wealth.
@kamranemin5356
2 жыл бұрын
when is irredentism 7 coming?
@benner86
2 жыл бұрын
Lets make it happen bois
@karlhschroeder
2 жыл бұрын
er du dansk?
@erlinggaratun6726
2 жыл бұрын
Not having a nobility was a great blessing for Norway, and Norwegian historians have revised the old view on the '400 year' night under Danish kings(we had our own laws, having a Danish king is not the same as being subject to the Danes. You could also say the Danes were ruled by a Norwegian royal family, which would also be technically true), and now say that it was probably the best thing to ever happen to the norwegian economy before we found oil in the 1960's. Your presentation is basically a little outdated. No offense. Nice lay-out ;)
@1MrErling
2 жыл бұрын
Baroniet i Rosendal ( dansk adel) hadde 1 200 gårder underlagt seg. Den dag i dag, selv om Baroniet nå er underlagt en norsk stiftelse, blir Baroniet angrepet av lokale bønder når Baroniet skal feire seg sjøl. -Hvordan de angriper? Bøndene kjører store vogner med ekskrementer / gjødsel opp etter grensen inn til Baroni bygget og sprøyter det ned. Gjerne rett for de Kongelige kommer, som er i slekt med okkupantene, den danske adel! Kom ikke å si vi er tilgivende i Norge. 300 hundre år etter 400 år med dansk utplyndring, har ikke bøndene glemt utarmingen til danskene!
@1MrErling
2 жыл бұрын
The barony in Rosendal (Danish nobility) had 1,200 farms subject to it. To this day, even though the Barony is now subject to a Norwegian foundation, the Barony is attacked by local farmers when the Barony is to celebrate itself. -How do they attack? The farmers drive large carts with excrement from the livestock up along the border into the Baroni building and spray it down. Certainly right before the Royals come, who are related to the occupiers, the Danish nobility! Do not say we are forgiving in Norway. 300 hundred years after 400 years of Danish looting, the farmers have not forgotten the impoverishment of the Danes!
@Martin-tp9lf
2 жыл бұрын
Haha. Nice try to change history. You were a danish province. Deal with it.
@erlinggaratun6726
2 жыл бұрын
@@1MrErling The less than a handful of nobles in Norway during the 'danish times' does not compare to having nobility like they did in Denmark. And the fact that norwegians made all kinds of small rebellions against danish officials (bishops, county clerks, etc. - and a couple of nobles) and often got away with it shows little sign of suppression. Norway was simply a nice source of tax money for the king, a good source of soldiers, and a good place for young danish nobles to get their noses rubbed in service as officials for the king. And Rosendal must be the only place in Norway that carries any resentment to the danes. Everywhere else, norway loves the danes. Because they are not Swedes..
@Desmuu
2 жыл бұрын
What if Novgorod united Russia?
@fredrika27
2 жыл бұрын
I visit Norway frequently the villages of Åmot and Nesland. I love it there! Very peaceful and lovely hospitality! Regarding Finnland's and Denmark's ruling over Norway, the Norwegians have loooonnnnnnngggg memories! They haven't forgotten the oppression under the Danes and Swedes while the Germans have a special place of hatred in older Norwegians heart! Our host at the farm told me that he forgave me for marry a German then stuck his hand out so we could pay for our lodge! 🤣🤣🤣Under his breath he said, "Nato has made me a peace loving man and now that we're all on the same side I can take the German's money!🤣🤣🤣🤣 The Shade! You know he showed us where the fight for heavy water was and we always laid a little wreath out of respect--every visit! When my ex transcended, our Norwegian friend called up and said, "Your Friedhelm was a good man! He taught me to trust the Germans again!" I was moved to tears. Then he said in a very quiet voice, "My wife is Finnish, but you didn't hear it from me! She's proof that we can all get along! Plus, she gave me a son, so I had to marry her!" 🤣🤣🤣 The deadpan humor! Totally cool peace loving people who don't forget their heritage and if you tread on them they all know how to take down an elk!!!😉 PS Party hard in 2005 when Norway celebrated its 100 year of being independent!
@avekat8425
Жыл бұрын
"Oppression" xddddddd
@fredrika27
Жыл бұрын
@avekat8425 Who is being oppressed here? The way I see it everyone has learned how to live happily with each other!
@Nortrix87
2 жыл бұрын
Not much knowledge about Norway is shown here, but thanks for the attempt i guess.
@geirdan
2 жыл бұрын
You missed the most important year in Norway's modern history, when Norway became independent again with its own Constitution, a modern legislation based on American and French constitutions and freedom ideals, in 1814. This was the year Norway came under the Swedish king after Napoleons defeat, however also gained it's internal self rule and its own governmenet and parliament. 1905 was the year when own foreign policy and own King was re-installed after 400 years.
@NoWonderDragon
6 ай бұрын
In the 13th century Norway was without a doubt the strongest Scandinavian country by far. The Norwegian king was at this time offered to become emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and the Norwegian king gifted a polar bear to the English king (!). Swedes went to Norway to learn about the world. After the Black Death it was way easier to reestablish power in Denmark than it was in Norway - due to the relative huge size of Norway combined with the then much smaller population and extreme terrain. In 1905 Norway actually had a higher gdp per capita than Sweden mostly due to the huge Norwegian merchant fleet. This fleet was a huge reason why Norway left Sweden in 1905 - as the Swedes refused to set up embassies in foreign ports important to Norway. At this time Norway had twice the GDP per capita compared to countries like Spain and Portugal (but much less than Britain and Germany). This same merchant fleet probably saved the allies from losing in ww2 (1000 Norwegian ships bringing fuel and supplies to Britain). If Norway had delayed the attack against England in 1066 by just 2 weeks until after the Norman invasion had taken place - there is a good chance that Norway would have won and England would have been 'part of Scandinavia'.
@JonBA94
2 жыл бұрын
I would guess because of geographical reasons. A very rugged mountainous land (like Norway) is obviously more difficult to rule/control, uphold legitimacy & law, defend, maintain, and to physically travel within. Compared to a small and flat peninsula like Denmark.
@CalvadosKid
2 жыл бұрын
This very point was demonstrated in WWII, when Denmark was overrun in one day by Germany while considerably larger German forces wrestled for control of Norway for over two months.
@JonBA94
2 жыл бұрын
@@CalvadosKid Yeah that's true. I kinda forgot to realize that mountainous countries although have a good advantage when it comes to defence
@jattikuukunen
2 жыл бұрын
@@JonBA94 Flat countries have the advantage of being populated by Finns. At least if the country's name is Suomi.
@JonBA94
2 жыл бұрын
@@jattikuukunen lol
@JonBA94
2 жыл бұрын
@@jattikuukunen Vast forests, lakes and swamps are also a fine defensive advantage against the Soviets, perkele!
@nikolajkristensen5960
2 жыл бұрын
denmark a major power is there something i missed in all my life here :D
@paulfri1569
2 жыл бұрын
Geography?
@Dan-fo9dk
8 ай бұрын
....typical ignorance shown when in the video stated the type like "....Norway was just a nothing and poor ....until it found oil.... ". No idea about that actually was Norway very much a highly industrialised nation ...due to the unparalleled access to hydro electric power. Norway had build it self up with a world leading shipping nation and had the 4th largest ship fleet. That fleet of ships ...specially the world largest and most modern tanker fleet....was a significant factor for the outcome of WW2.
@ABHB666
2 жыл бұрын
I really don't understand the timeframe. Sweden-Finland where brothers and sisters for over 700 year's. Sweden didn't go to war with the Finland, we unified as one country as Sweden. After the breakup Finland did start as a Country. Hold the facts right.
@bkgames2
2 жыл бұрын
We werent unified per say, we kinda subjugated the Finns Then Russia came
@christerskjellvik2169
2 жыл бұрын
The Orkney Islands and Shetland belong to Norway. Let's first get a quick overview of what it's all about. Those who know Norwegian history have probably experienced Norway's heyday back in 11/12 and the 14th century the so-called Norwegian Empire, when Greenland Iceland included the Faroe Islands Orkenøyene and Hjaltland (Shetland) as well as the Man and Hebrides in the west and east Herjedalen Jemtlant and Båhuslen. The Man and the Hebrides were first declared and surrendered to Scotland for a fixed sum of 4,000 gold coins and an annual fee of 100 gold coins forever. The annual fee stopped Scotland and paying after only 2-3 years and since never paid as the agreement was entered into. In connection with the abdication of the Man and the Hebrides, Norwegian supremacy over the Orkney Islands and Shetland was recognized by Scotland, the years after the (Perth Treaty) was signed, the Orkney Islands and Shetland were placed directly under the Norwegian crown and thus considered as Norwegian as the mainland itself. All the islands that were left in Norway, ie Greenland Iceland, the Faroe Islands, the Orkney Islands and Shetland, followed Norway into union with Sweden and Denmark, the so-called Kalmar Union, something the islands did automatically because they were all in the Norwegian kingdom. During union with Denmark, the islands of Orkney and Hjaltland were pledged by the Danish king behind Norway and without the knowledge of the Norwegian parliament in 1468/69 to Scotland as dowry for his daughter's marriage to the Scottish king. In connection with the agreement, a number of demands were made and among these demands it says that nothing should change for the people on the islands, ie that the many hundreds of years old Norwegian nobility law should not or could not be touched but perhaps the most important requirement was that future Norwegian kings could meet pledged FOREVER! In other words, there is no write-down about when it should be redeemed. Attempts to redeem the mortgage have been attempted a number of times in the late 1480s twice in the 16th century and again both in the 16th and 18th centuries and as late as 1850 but each time rejected by Scotland. Legally, I think Norway is so strong about this case that I wonder if Norway does not try this in a European or possibly international court, all indications are that Norway would win such a case with the documents and lawyers you can present today. These are just short outlines of the case around the islands in the west which I believe belong to Norway to this day. But what do you think about this?
@christerskjellvik2169
2 жыл бұрын
In 1814, the old Norwegian settlements of Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Greenland were separated from Norway by the Treaty of Kiel. In this treaty, which was concluded between Denmark and Sweden, Norway was to cede to Sweden, but at the same time the Danish negotiator, Burke, took advantage of the Swedish negotiator, Baron Wetterstedt's lack of historical knowledge to exclude the Norwegian settlements Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland from the waiver. Norway was thus deprived of its land by a direct deception. "Skurkestreken i Kiel" Aftenposten called this action shortly after the ruling on the Greenland case in The Hague. The King of Denmark and Norway, Fredrik VI, then acted in direct conflict with the promise the monarchy had given the Norwegian estates in 1661 with the introduction of autocracy, after which none of these kingdoms would ever be divided. And in the Royal Law, Article 19 stipulated that "both kingdoms should be unchanging and indivisible". About this king's action, it is stated in the reinforced constitutional committee's recommendation on the Greenland case in 1923 (Recommendation S. LXVI - 1923, p. 6): "Secondly, Frederick VI acted by concluding the treaty of Kiel in violation of international law. Norway was a separate kingdom, a separate subject of international law. When Fredrik VI, as King of Denmark, sought to acquire Norway's biland by virtue of an act to which he as Norwegian king was unjustified, he violated Norway's international law rights. The conclusion of the Kiel Peace with the proviso in its nature. 4 was therefore a violation of international law by the king towards Norway. Apart from the fact that the Kiel Treaty was not otherwise binding on Norway, this country was consequently entitled to consider the reservation on the Norwegian tax countries in the nature of the treaty for the reasons stated. 4 as unwritten. In Norway, therefore, the Kiel peace has never been recognized. " Unfortunately, we must admit that the interests of Norwegian hunters and fishermen have been poorly taken care of by Norwegian politicians. The gentlemen who cared about Norway's foreign policy had far greater personal international goals than securing the interests of Norwegian fishermen and trappers. It was first and foremost about becoming big and brilliant in the so-called League of Nations. Mowinckel, Hambro, Nygaardsvold and Koht are the brightest stars in the skies of neglect, and it may be tempting to ask: What have these gentlemen done after 9 April to secure Norwegian interests in Arctic waters? Also in Svalbard, our politicians have pursued a short-sighted policy, as they then neglected to buy important mines that were offered to Norway, and which unfortunately came into foreign hands. But Norway's living space is not just in the north. Norwegian expansion has also taken hold in Antarctica. In 1892-93, the first Norwegian whaler, Jason, traveled south to conduct pelagic fishing in the South Seas, and this was the beginning of a fantastic development. In the coming time, Norwegians discovered and mapped large areas of land on the South Pole. Here too, however, the Norwegian interests are not taken care of in an effective way by our party politicians. In 1939, the Norwegian annexation of a sector on the South Pole Calotte took place. But Britain and its colonies have annexed three major sectors here. They have unscrupulously taken the lion's share of the Antarctic continent, despite the fact that the practical exploitation of these countries has been more Norwegian than British. Here, too, Norway has legitimate demands to make in the settlement that will come. Particularly relevant, however, is the question of the Norwegian habitat in the Norwegian Sea and the islands around this sea. It has recently been stated by the American team that Greenland, which is located in the western hemisphere, belongs to the Monroe area. Stauning stated in the Folketing on 4 June 1940: "A public statement has been made by President Roosevelt that Greenland belongs to the western area, which is understood as meaning that it belongs to the Monroe doctrine. A US consulate has been established in Greenland, and this is due to a statement from the US Secretary of State on the grounds that the U. S. A. will not tolerate the interference of European states in US territory. " However, this interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine cannot be applied to Norway, because what Norway demands is not a transfer of sovereignty on the part of Denmark. Norway only demands that Denmark recognize that the provisions of the Kiel Treaty were non-binding for Norway, and that Norway has had sovereignty since the Middle Ages. The Kiel Treaty was a treaty between Denmark and Sweden, and as mentioned, Norway has never recognized this treaty. It has been called by the German team "the Nordic Versailles Treaty", and it would then be completely natural that the injustice that was committed in Kiel was remedied now that so much injustice is made good again. The Kiel Treaty is also so much rougher than the Treaty of Versailles, firstly because it came about through outright lies and deception, and secondly because there was not even a Norwegian present who could refute the false Danish claim. Although the Treaty of Versailles was a dictation, there was then a representation from the Germans present, who saw no other resort than to sign, but Norwegians have not even signed the Kiel Treaty. It has been customary in party political and democratic circles to persecute the national Norwegians who supported Norway's justified demands for a habitat around the Norwegian Sea. These party politicians, who did not have their national instincts in order, did not consider sacrificing the interests of Norwegian fishermen and trappers for the benefit of themselves and their party. And yet, after all, a large part of Norway's population is relegated to applying for their profession in the Arctic. We have 8-10 000 whalers in the Antarctic region, 1-2000 sealers and many thousands of fishermen in the Arctic have from Novaya Semlya to the west coast of Greenland, as well as wintering hunters on Svalbard, Jan Mayn and Greenland who are engaged in catching foxes and bear. But these hunters and fishermen obviously did not mean anything to our union politicians.
@guzelataroach4450
2 жыл бұрын
Keltere/skotter levde på noen av de øyene først, Å ha rett på noen andres Native land bare fordi man kontrollerte dem i noen hundre år er Ulogisk.
@christerskjellvik2169
2 жыл бұрын
@@guzelataroach4450 De som var der hadde aldri gjort krav på øyene… Norge gjorde krav på dem og la øyene under Norges konge og der var de i 700 år. Resten er historie som du leser over her.
@sebastianvangen
2 жыл бұрын
As a Half Swede/Norwegian its funny how i am one of both sides.
@nosatier9460
2 жыл бұрын
as a Norwigian I demand you to stop right there
@ludexia5338
2 жыл бұрын
As another Norwegian, keep going it's actually very informative.
@plexusGD
2 жыл бұрын
new alternate history wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen
@hanaka8735
2 жыл бұрын
This just shows that norway is the king of comebacks lol.
@dmbbeatbox4617
2 жыл бұрын
How is that even a question? Lol (I'm swedish)
@DainHunter
2 жыл бұрын
Rest in peace, Harald Hairfair
@eivindmosesen767
2 жыл бұрын
He was a mass murderer and his chosen heir was Erik bloodaxe
@DainHunter
2 жыл бұрын
@@eivindmosesen767 Kill or be killed, that was life before. He is the founder of Norway as a country.
@joselugo4536
2 жыл бұрын
Jared Diamond nailed it when he stated the impossibility of Norway of carrying a colonization of America.
@christopherellis2663
2 жыл бұрын
Richest and most expensive
@perolden
2 жыл бұрын
The Queen of Noeway was made ruler of Denmark and Sweden, after her son Olav died He was the veien Prince Prince og Noeway. Even og the Queen was daughter og a Danish king, she was Norwegian sine she lives vere sine she was 9 yes ild. Som in effekt, Norway ruled all og the Nordica, 50 years after the Black death
@Diddiwehy
2 жыл бұрын
True, not to even mention the Norwegian kings who was made also swedish or danish kings later, Magnus Eriksson for example.
@lord_pamperin4233
11 ай бұрын
If Norway 🇳🇴 and Sweden 🇸🇪 still was under Denmark 🇩🇰 this day we could have been a super power I think 🤔
@user-mr3hu2jo8e
2 жыл бұрын
Why did you stop alternatr history videos? They were your best work.
@user-mr3hu2jo8e
2 жыл бұрын
You are still a great KZitemr thought. But I prefer your alt history videos that you new ones
@TheSpadaLunga
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah and i think he deleted a few of his old alternate history videos
@lilmontrz6117
2 жыл бұрын
What about the Vikings tho
@henriks.korsvik527
2 жыл бұрын
With 11 000 000 000 000 000 in cash I’d say they’re a great power
@norge9956
2 жыл бұрын
Hei fra Norge bra vid
@Vetikkehva
3 ай бұрын
Norway owned the kola peninsula
@mrmarmellow563
Жыл бұрын
Why No Major Alt-History For This STRONK-NORWAY.. PLZ do More Research and Add Moor Detail‼️
@christianbustnes9212
2 жыл бұрын
easy, to harsh of a weather, and to infertile soil to feed a large population, but those who lived trough those harsh condition became quite more tough than the rest who didnt :-3
@christhegamingdude3491
2 жыл бұрын
Who's laughting now?🤑
@stephenrohaim382
2 жыл бұрын
Its never too late :)
@MemTMCR
2 жыл бұрын
I imagine between 70 and 100 percent of views came from norwegians
@jonathanthomsen6440
2 жыл бұрын
0:22 Norway 🇳🇴 has only unify a little area was in Area in Sweden or what is now Sweden 🇸🇪 today and Norway 🇳🇴 was not the first to unify a bigger area, but that was actually Denmark 🇩🇰 that unified, Denmark 🇩🇰, Norway 🇳🇴 and Svalbard, Sweden 🇸🇪, Finland 🇫🇮 and Iceland 🇮🇸 and Greenland 🇬🇱 and The Åland Islands 🇦🇽 and The Faroe Islands 🇫🇴 and orkney and the shetland islands and Northern Germany and Eastern Germany / North east Germany 🇩🇪 and some other places in eastern Europe and in Western Europe or something like that under The Kalmar union and the unions capital was Copenhagen in Denmark 🇩🇰 🙂😎✌️👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
@midsue
2 жыл бұрын
Intressant ämne 🤔
@andremakesartnstuff8740
2 жыл бұрын
:( sad norwigain noises
@DJFotele
2 жыл бұрын
"Why Was Norway Never a Great Power?" - come and live here you will see in 1 day
@yamaha_Leon
2 жыл бұрын
Norway is stronger than denmark
@brochad969
Жыл бұрын
They ware a great power during the Viking age it’s because Norway started the raiding and the expansion
@JohnOlimb
2 жыл бұрын
Everyone agrees that there is no nobility in Norway, never has been. A farmer's son in mid-Norway in the mid 19th century, what would be the highest achievement in his life? Being a captain on a ship. A farmer's son of a large farm, was the highest possible rank. That pretty much describes the ambitions of the Norwegians. They still wanted to go to the sea.
@VATJON
2 жыл бұрын
I'm Norwegian
@ivantubez3496
2 жыл бұрын
Lots of civil wars did not help either..
@rolfustroli7170
2 жыл бұрын
Wtf are You talking about…
@Emilsigland
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah i agree. Norway was the strongest in the viking age but after That there was no more Norwegian power left🇳🇴🇳🇴🇳🇴
@EmilReiko
2 жыл бұрын
Denmark was stronger in the viking age, norway had its upturn in the first part of the early nordic middleages
@Emilsigland
Жыл бұрын
@@EmilReiko In the late years of the Viking age, Norway was a superior power. Denmark was stronger earlier in the Viking age
@EmilReiko
Жыл бұрын
@@Emilsigland you mean the blip in the very end from 1042 when king of Denmark and England dies to Harald Hårderåde is killed at Stamford bridge in 1066? I wouldnt call that a superpower, norway is stabilized, Harald tries to claim the Throne of Denmark and fails, then he attempt to claim the throne of England and dies. He is an interesting king and all, but as a conqueror in the late Viking age, he stands very much in the shadow of both Svend Tveskæg and Knud the great. Both late viking age kings
@Emilsigland
Жыл бұрын
@@EmilReiko Denmark defenetly was the regional power in the early viking age, but in the late years of the time Norway was the regional power, and the kingdom would be that until the late 1300s. After that Norway lost its power, and became almost as big of a joke as it is today. (Also i never called Norway a superpower. No scandinavian country has ever been)
@Fonetiker
2 жыл бұрын
Maybe not the most accurate video...
@99marius9
2 жыл бұрын
It is because we are the great power now
@VxVidoy
2 жыл бұрын
EXCUSE ME? Norway was great during the Viking age!
@Fonetiker
2 жыл бұрын
5:25 . . . Invade?
@Neatling
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, invade. I'm referring to the Swedish-Norwegian war of 1814.
Пікірлер: 370