>Implying vikins had success against any people but anglos.
What happened to the vikings?
They raped one of my ancestors and now their blood flows through my veins as per the DNA test we did.
>feels good to have the literal blood of cold-blooded warrior flow through my veins.
You mean to tell me a warrior class of people who could not be controlled or have their ways changed stopped what they were doing and submitted to what the rest of Europe wanted?
I'm not having a go at you, i'm just saying that makes 0 sense.
The only way you could get rid of warrior classes was to destroy them either by eradicated them like the Spartans and samurai, or occupying them and colonizing them like the Maori.
...what are Normans?
They took and held large portions of the Netherlands as well. Raided all the way down the rhine, and the seine including Paris itself.
Some minor Vikingr activities happened into the 1100s, perhaps as late as the early 1200s, mostly around the North Sea and Scotland. The events of 1066 were probably very demotivating for the entire "industry" of what going Vikingr entailed, in terms of raids and conquests. Vikings were not always hostile, but also traders, and they mostly went along that course, henceforth, with more formal military plans taking the place of raids in Scandinavian countries. Genetically, modern Scandinavians are still the Vikings, they just have not gone Vikingr for centuries.
they found antarctica after spending hundreds of years in the sea exploring for new lands
Maybe raiding became less attractive as crop production increased.
except for the Swedes. The modern Danish and Norwigans were the ones that actually did most of the raiding and trading.
They were mostly traders and farmers to begin with. They settled a lot of northern england. All they wanted was land. They became farmers. Then swedecucks and britbongs.
What happened to. Roman empire. Bro