1. Your country
2. How much land has your country lost throughout history?
>swedish viking empire
You fucking seious?
Part of your map includes either Jorvik, which was established by a Dane, or the Danelaw (the name says all that needs to be said).
Also, your claims to viking control over all that eastern european/western asian territory is extremely optimistic to say the least.
Read a fucking book. Swedes and norsemen in general had a relatively HUGE influence on faraway European societies as far back as the Roman times (Tacitus et al)
+ Ireland, York and North-Western Scotland further back into the viking ages. Maybe even Normandy too if we wanna get generous. All tragic losses, but we can console ourselves with the fact that we're now larger than ever before thanks to Antarctica.
Bolivia, Uruguay, Paraguay, parts of Chile and Brazil...
>Part of your map includes either Jorvik, which was established by a Dane
It was captured by Ivar the Boneless, son of Ragnar Lodbrok, son of Sigurd Ring, Swedish king at Uppsala. Not a Dane.
>The invaders are usually identified as Danes, although the tenth-century churchman Asser stated that the invaders came "de Danubia", which translates as "from the Danube", the fact that the Danube is located in what was known in Latin as Dacia suggests that Asser actually intended Dania, a Latin term for Denmark.
Well considering that we're basically a mix or Romans and Ancient Greeks something like this.
>Sigurd Hring (Old Norse: Sigurðr hringr (Hringr meaning 'Ring')) (fl.ca 750) was a legendary Swedish king mentioned in many old Scandinavian sagas. According to Bósa saga ok Herrauds, there was once a saga on Sigurd Hring, but this saga is now lost. In the old sources, he is notable for winning the Battle of the Brávellir against Harald Wartooth and for being the father of Ragnar Lodbrok.
Everyone was called Danes, more or less, by the English. Ragnar Lodbrok and his sons, however, were Swedish by blood and later ruled certain lands in that capacity. The great heathen army was composed of Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians alike, anyway (in whatever capacity such abstractions existed then). Yes, they all more or less came from Denmark, or Jutland, because that was a good place to launch such campaigns and raids.
Obviously you wish to appropriate the history of others because Sweden has barely has any history worth mentioning. It must suck, so I understand your efforts.
The "viking" influences stemmed predominantly from Norway and Denmark and the respecitve cultures merged and expanded (and conquered). They have nothing to do with Sweden outside of the residual appropriation.
Not exactly. It's semi-legendary history. There was a person, or several people, who gave rise to this, however. Ragnar's sons, and the house that he spawned, however, can certainly be considered real. We refer to it as the House of Munsö, or Björn Ironside's house (because of the above), into which the first proper kings of Sweden were born.
The problem is, his sons aren't really his sons.
Also, Halfdan didn't just stroll into England and conquer what is now Yorkshire on his own. He did it with Danish muscle, regardless of his ancestry, so it should be considered a Danish accomplishment.
You realize that there are lots of written accounts of Swedish raids and exploits in England, right?
And besides, your national epic is about a Swedish hero anyway. Get your own heroes, m8.
>The problem is, his sons aren't really his sons.
Nevertheless, they are considered Swedish. At least by our accounts and the Icelandic sagas. The Danish accounts probably differ, of course.
And as for the army, as I have previously pointed out, it was far from exclusively Danish.
I imagine the south brazilian "muh whiteness" would be two times bigger.
this is what we lost in the peninsula, the rest were colonies
>No no it was Norwegian
>far from exclusively Danish.
>Norwegians did that
it was american state rivalry tier
I have told you what I know of this, and you don't care to listen, apparently. That's all I can do. Aside from hoping that you read up on what I've said. You could even read the sagas themselves -- there are excellent translations. The fornaldar sagas (the ancient sagas) in particular concern ancient Swedish history, of which Ragnar Lodbrok's saga, is part.
You could also read up on Beowulf, if you like. He was half-Geatish, half-Swedish. Which I guess is how you could characterize the modern Swedish nation, actually.
But, all of this kind of assumes that you have an interest in history. Which isn't a given.
If all Vikings were Swedes, then all this clay is rightfully ours.
Please vacate the continent immediately, thank you.
A couple towns, and the Isle of Mann. You guys never really controlled real areas. Irish Kingdoms fought amongst each other instead.
>mfw one side of my family claims descent from Conn of the Hundred Battles and the other from Ivar the Boneless' brother.
>I honestly see no problem with this thinking
Because Goidelic Celts and Continental Celts aren't the same, the languages weren't even really mutually intelligible. Not even Irish and Welsh is mutually intelligible.
If something was you would definitely know that.
It's always extremely cringy when scandies get mad when they're misidentified with one another, there's no way to tell them different.
Dublin was, in reality, a tiny part of the island.
There's reports of the Irish and Romans trading with each other, and even plans for a Roman Invasion that didn't come to fruition, but they've never arrived here in force or conquered us.
They marched into Scotland a couple times, yes, but I'm quite certain they didn't occupy Ireland for any period of time.
First map is 90% Viking raids and not actual empire
Get fucked Nordshit
Also not even Swedish but broad Scandinavian, being so irrelevant you have to make BS maps, that's just sad anon.
>Kingdom of Dublin
it was a shitty trading post that got rekt because it picked the wrong side in the Munster vs Leinster war. Dublin didn't become inportant until the Pale
They had a trading post north of Dublin and possibly sent some soldiers to support Tuathal Teachtmhar
There was little if any interaction between Finns and Swedes but until recently.
>were busy building mud huts
The situation was exactly the same in "Sweden" but here it continued all the way to 19th century.
Well, at least the Romans had soldiers. The Irish merely had armed farmers and a handful of mercenaries/bodyguards for every clan leader. I'd say merely the presence of an organised military equals some kind of an occupation
I know you're memeing but the somalis got fucked out of a shit ton of their land because of colonialism.
The ogaden in ethopia and the nothern frontier district of Kenya has been inhibited by ethnic Somalis for thousands of years.
>There is some evidence of possible exploratory expeditions during the time of Gnaeus Julius Agricola, although the interpretation of this is a matter of debate amongst historians. In places like Drumanagh (interpreted by some historians to be the site of a possible Roman fort or temporary camp) and Lambay island, some Roman military-related finds may be evidence for some form of Roman presence. The most commonly advanced interpretation is that any military presence was to provide security for traders, possibly in the form of an annual market where Romano-British and Irish met to trade. Other interpretations, however, suggest these may be merely Roman trading outposts, or native Irish settlements which traded with Roman Britain. Later, during the collapse of Roman authority in the 4th and 5th centuries, Irish tribes raided Britain and may have brought back Roman knowledge of classical civilization.
>However, whether this is evidence of trade, diplomacy or military activity is a matter of controversy. It is possible that the Romans may have given support to Túathal, or someone like him, to regain his throne in the interests of having a friendly neighbour who could restrain Irish raiding.
>It is also speculated that such an invasion may have been the origin of the presence of the Brigantes in Ireland as noted in Ptolemy's 2nd century Geography. The Brigantes were a rebellious British tribe only recently conquered in Agricola's time. The dispossessed nobility may have been ready recruits for Tuathal's invasion force, or the Romans may have found it a convenient way of getting rid of troublesome subjects, just as Elizabeth I and James VI & I planted rebellious Scots in Ireland in the 16th and 17th century.
Again, I would request that you provide reading material instead of just saying "lol proof"
that doesn't mean it was under the "swedish" (that term didn't even exist dumbass) empire you dumb fucker. by this logic greece used to own all of europe during the reinassance, despite not existing
The North Sea Empire was under Cnut, so not really Norwegian. I did mention Normandy, but that was with the Danes. It's still disputed whether Rollo was Norwegian or Danish, and despite "Norman" being a term for Norwegian in a lot of contexts, it could also mean people from all of Scandinavia.
>Spain as part of Sweden.
Following this pic part of Japan was part of Spain for a time (Nagasaki), Japanese will argue against this.
Post some of your great Swedish marvels from when you werent cucked by the Catholic church then. I mean surely you have great monuments if you were so more advanced, altough you never could conquer us.
By the way, Tacitus once mentions a tribe that might mean Swedes. That puts Swedes in the class of "less relevant than Finns" since "Fenni" are at least definitely mentioned once.
You know this almost makes me feel sorry for Swedes, the way they're treated on 4chan. If I would have posted a bunch of made up maps of the ancient Finnish khanate you would have all just given thumbs up to le ebin Finnish meme master.
I guess Finnish privilege is just a fact of no-life and we never really even notice it until we see discrimination with our own bloodshot eyes.