This is partially true. Dublin or Dubh Lin (Black Pool) in Irish was settled long before the existence of Vikings (about 3,500 BC). The Vikings named it Dublin, but cities existed in the same spot thousands of years beforehand. When you say, Vikings, you might not realize that Vikings are an integral part of Irish history and a huge % of our heritage is proudly made of Viking history. After many generations, the Vikings who settled in Dublin were obviously Irish and to me, are as Irish as myself (celtic bloodline). It's now over 1,000 years since they arrived their and it's well known and there is pride in saying Dublin is a Viking city. Vikings mostly built in Wood. The celts build with stone. The vikings and celts actually buolt Dublin together. Vikings used Celtic tech such as Crann Og's and adopted an Irish way of life. While other "Vikings" began to even pillage those Vikings who settled in Dublin. Other Viking/ Irish settlements include Waterford, although VaterFjord already existed under a different name and the original city can be found a few miles up the road.

An example of the confusion: Brian Boru, allied with Vikings to take the city of Dublin from Vikings. Vikings on both sides. Celts on both sides. All Irish. Great battle, cool history now. "Vikings" were not really a particular race. Instead they were a number of groups. The Normans were vikings who settled in Normandy in return for the promise that they would stop looting paris and instead protect the seaways. Very complex stuff that has bee highly misinterpreted these days.

Take this excert from the "Ireland" heading on wikipedia as something interesting to read.

"

Ireland

Longphort phase

The Vikings conducted extensive raids in Ireland at first they founded Limerick in 812, then established a settlement near Waterford in 853, invaded Dublin and maintained control until 1169, and founded trading ports in Cork in the 9th century. The Vikings and Scandinavians settled down and intermixed with the Irish. Literature, crafts, and decorative styles in Ireland and Britain reflected Scandinavian culture. Vikings traded at Irish markets in Dublin. Excavations found imported fabrics from England, Byzantium, Persia and central Asia. Dublin became so crowded by the 11th century that houses were constructed outside the town walls.

The Vikings pillaged monasteries on Ireland's west coast in 795 and then spread out to cover the rest of the coastline. The north and east of the island were most affected. During the first 40 years, the raids were conducted by small, mobile Viking groups. By 830, the groups consisted of large fleets of Viking ships. From 840, the Vikings began establishing permanent bases at the coasts. Dublin was the most significant settlement in the long term. The Irish became accustomed to the Viking presence. In some cases they became allies and married each other.

In 832, a Viking fleet of about 120 invaded kingdoms on Ireland’s northern and eastern coasts. Some believe that the increased number of invaders coincided with Scandinavian leaders' desires to control the profitable raids on the western shores of Ireland. During the mid-830s, raids began to push deeper into Ireland, as opposed to just touching the coasts. Navigable waterways made this deeper penetration possible. After 840, the Vikings had several bases in strategic locations dispersed throughout Ireland.

In 838, a small Viking fleet entered the River Liffey in eastern Ireland. The Vikings set up a base, which the Irish called a longphort. This longphort eventually became Dublin. After this interaction, the Irish experienced Viking forces for about 40 years. The Vikings also established longphorts in Cork, Limerick, Waterford, and Wexford. The Vikings could sail through on the main river and branch off into different areas of the country."

Thanks for the response.  I will not act like I know a lot about Russia's past (especially compared to you).  I just remembered that the Rus were kind of shunned or their past wasn't really acknowledged much among modern day Russians.  I thought I read somewhere that the Rus contributions were semi forgotten/not really important to most Russians these days. 

Forgive my lumping all Scandinavia (and Denmark) people into Vikings.  I had a few too many drinks last night and when I get drunk I usually generalize all Scandinavians as Vikings in that era even though to be a Viking one must go i viking.  Sure the Rus didn't do much besides clear trade routes and perhaps install a little more order but I believe it paved the way for the great nation of Russia.  They deserve some credit but obviously not all credit.

Yea, I know of the Rollo landing in Normandy.  Basically they settled there in force.  It was also were a "myth" came about where a local went up to them asking of their lord and supposedly the "We have no lord, we are all equal" phrase first came about.  Normandy was one of the first places to promote this idea later. 

I agree that Vikings later just integrated with the locals.  They stopped their looting (because Europe started defending itself better against their raids) and integrated into society.  Almost all people that go far from their land. 

Carthage was a Phoenician colony then they eventaully saw themselves as different (and became an empire).  USA was an English colony.. etc.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I've only voted once :) I know how it goes, I want you to know it's no blind hatred. I even have a few Russian friends. It's more of something along the lines - I want my country to accept the challenge your is throwing. You are an aggresive and highly negative force, you have done a bucketload of bad things and we have to make sure it doesn't happen again. You sure have returned to your old bad ways and we have to step up and fight your aggression. There is no doubt that Poland has the means to do it, just the government has to change from these pro-Russian pussies that have been ruling the country since Kaczyński died.

What economic problems are you talking about?

I don't think it's the same case. The Polish-Russian history is much more complicated. Comparing the things USA has done in Latin America to what the Russians have done in Poland just in the 20th century is just inappropriate. USA is just having fun and causing some havoc to remain influencial, but is mostly hated because "they are rich, we are not and it's because of them", while Russia has invaded Poland in 1920 (though we won this war), 1939, 1944 and brutally occupied us until 1989. We are still suffering from the damage they've cause us during that occupation. Hell, I was born in a Russia-occupied Poland. I remember tanks on the streets. I was 7 when Russian army left my country. That is different than what you have in Latin America :P It's not some behind the curtains work, it's homicides and terror. And now, after the quiet 90s, Russia has returned to that policy. It has returned to that mindset and to waging war on the surrounding countries. After the invasion in Crimea, our TV broadcast a session of the Russian Parliament. It was shocking to us, but was the perfect proof that what I say about the Russian state of mind is true. The things that the Members of Parliament were saying were just unbelievable. To us they were so shocking, that the journalists  ask our former politicians from communist times, who ruled Poland on the behalf of Russia, for interviews and even they were shocked. Even they admitted that Russian MoPs still have the same mindset like in the 50s, 60s and 70s. They are repeating the same bullshit, lies and propaganda in the same twisted and wicked ways that our communist leaders were forced to brainwash us with. Seriously, even the highest former communist leaders in Poland were in a state of disbelief. Such Russia cannot be tolerated. I would say it's a timebomb ready to explode, but unfortunately it's already exploding.

Also, as Mai said (nice Polish by the way), some time ago Poland used to be a superpower and the top dog in our relations, we have been the only nation ever to successfully conquer and rule Russia for a period of time. Unfortunately, the constant pressure from Russia from East, Germany from West, Sweden from the North (quite powerful at that time) and the great Turkish Empire from the South proved to be too much after some time. Hence, we don't consider ourselves the weak little guys next to a towering giant. If we felt that way, Solidarność would have never stood up against communism the way it did and we wouldn't have destroyed that bloody iron curtain. A fun fact is that Poland has never lost a war against Russia (or Germany) which was fought 1 vs 1. Every time when we lost, Russia had help from Germany or some other country. I totally expect Poland to stand up and compete with Russia, as I know it's absolutely possible, we have all the means to do it.

@Ireland - when I was in Ireland, I was shocked by how rural this country is. It seems just like a vilage with Dublin being the only city. From the 4 photos that were posted here, what I remember looks much more like the "what Americans think" than like "what it really is". I mean, how many such big and advanced roundabouts like the one in the picture are there in Ireland? And how many outside of Dublin? Compare that to the lenght of these "roads that only lead to a castle or sth.". I mean, there are only 5 cities with more than 40k people... It's crazy rural :)

While I know Putin's actions look like Anschluss of Austria or what Hitler did with the Czechoslovakia, but still I think it's a reflection of a kind of ignorance that the West has when it comes to the dictators of that period. People in the West think that Hitler = ultimate evil, so when they want to compare Putin to someone scary, they go for Hitler. I think there is no need to search for dictators and mass-murderers abroad - their homeboy Stalin was much worse than Hitler, Lenin was almost there as well.

Lenin
Stalin
Putin

How nicely does it roll off the tongue! It's impossible not to see the resemblance. 3 Russian tyrants - we can leave the Austrian one out of it.

They way you state your questions is rather layman'ish, bear signs of many anachronism, i.e. brining contermporary phenomenons into context of given historical period. Acknowledging vikings, or I'd prefer "varyags" (if you've read Tolkien's LOTR, you should have stumbled upon this word already), is like my left kidney say thanks to my right kidney for my well-being.

The "acknowledgment" of Rus' exists in many ways, aside from Norman theories there's plenty of alternatives like Indo-Iranian or Slavic theories, all of them in one way or another basically speculate on the ethimlogy of the word "Rus'". The quote you referred to is looks like translation of Primary Chronicle, dated back to XII century (exists only in quotes from far more later documents from XV-XVII centuries). As any translation it is interpretation and it's better to read it in original language. Your translation suggests that the Rus' is antoher tribe, that is smth not particulary clear from original document.

Say, here's the quote from Novgorod Chronicle, which presumambly quotes even earlier document, Initial Code, that supports the idea of "Rus'" being a profession:

Source

Varyags, as well as vikings, obviously bear some signs of Nordic heritage, hence their names. But not for too long as Svyatoslav, the very same who defeated khazars, was Rurik's grandson as legend suggests and the first from Rurikids to have a Slavic name. Meaning of which, assimilation took 2 generations to complete. Speaking about Rurikids, as per recent research, their male ancestry consists of two primary Y-DNA haplogroups N1c and R1a. This was a genetic research and doesn't give us full idea of Rurik's heritage (and on top of things it's based on assumption that their wives didn't cheat on them, which is, mind you, bold assumption), but a good hint it is. Here's the map of Y-DNA haplogroups distribution accross the Europe:

Really dude? That's what you think of Latin America. That's a cheap answer. Do you know who Pinochet, Stroessner, Videla, Rodriguez Lara, and so on, are? They are all dictadors, maybe you should investigate which country financed their coups just to stop communism in the region. You should investigate which country supported their regimes eventhough all of them killed thousands of innocent people. Which country forced neoliberalism as an economic system to the region and destroyed the economies of many countries. Which country took advantage of these puppet leaders to send euro-american companies to take possession of the region's resources. God, in Bolivia they even privatized rainwater. In my country, Ecuador, they started to extract oil, but then we returned to democracy, and when the president Jaime Roldós tried to nationalize oil, they killed him. During the entire XX century they used military force to invade countries and to  establish of military bases in the region. In my own country we had a military base until 2009. The World Bank forced our governments to modify our educational systems just to teach us since we were kids that we were poor, and that we couldn't do anything to take back our resources. 

I'm not saying that you lived in paradise with the Russian occupation, but the terrible things the US did to Latin America are way more complex to the simplistic point of view you have. The puppet leaders, the whole brainwash thing, and the other things Russia did to you, they are not so different from what the US did to us. 

He simplifies everything, that'd be his general way of thinking. Not so far time ago, if I'm not msitaken it was him, he shunned the topic of Polish occupation of Czechoslovakia, because I assume it contradicts the idea of self-victimization. Big fish eats smaller fish, that's understandable even though not justifiable, but historical self-victimization is a sign of a helpless looser, counter-productive and destructive for one's mind.

Well, yeah that's the history of mankind. That's why I can understand his hatred towards the Russian government and some Russian leaders, but what I can't understand is his hatred towards the Russians in general. In Latin America we know what the US did to us, we will not forget that, but we don't hate the country nor its citizens.

Anyways, Scisca has his own point of view, and I respect that even though I don't share it.