Why are vikings romanticized? They were assholes

> Why are the Mongols romantisized?
> Why are the Romans romantisized
> Why is Hitler Germany romantisized?
> Why is Great Britain romantisized?

People
Love
Conquerors

Nordicism, mostly. But basically any successful conqueror gets the hell romanticized out of them, and the Norse did plenty of that.

The romanticization of the vikings is more noticeable to you because you don't like them. Think about a historical group you like, they're probably likewise severely romanticized.

Because we wuz chieftains n shit

Literally everyone back then was a fucking sociopath by our standards

Except maybe the Jains

I like them because depictions of them always make the vikings look cool, and I find there version of paganism interesting. Also because a lot of neckbeard/keyboard warriors wish they could be muscular warrior men that look like something from a fantasy game.

The enigmatic and mysterious ancestors of people who created the modern world. Do the math.

WE WUZ thinking

Because Vikings had much more of an emphasis on the accomplishments of individual great warriors than other European cultures of the time.

It makes for good storytelling when you can focus on the martial feats of a couple of badass dudes, rather than recounting the movements of a faceless horde of peasant levy troops.

Unlike Charlemagne, of course.

The thing is, people don't associate themselves with the Victims, despite almost definitely having descended from victims. They associate with victors, with conquerors, and that's what people see in the Vikings.

Not really. They were the stereotypical barbarians. Not civilized nations like the roman states.

That's like saying Hitler is just like everyone else. Yes he is human, but he's a master mind behind many of the horrible things that happened.

Yeah hardrada wad the best of the lot & he was a real asshole

they were nearly as civilised as romans

>They were assholes
AWESOME assholes

REEEEEEEEE
King Harlaus true king of Calradia!

this

Nice try, shitskin Pajeet.

>Romans
>civilized
When will this meme end?

Ew.

>They were assholes
"Viking" doesn't solely refer to raiding Norsemen, the term simply refers to seafearing meaning that a Viking could be anything from a settler to a trader to a raider

well... no

Well... yes

no. it doesn't even refer to person but is a verb. and it means exactly seaborne raiding, not settling or trading.

>literalism
Wew lad, that might be true however a term (especially one like "viking") is not limited to its etymological roots, the way we understand the term today is important not what it originally meant and this meaning would be in the light of archeology: "seafaring Norseman"

you started

>Why are pirates romanticized? They were assholes
>Why are mongols romanticized? They were assholes
>Why are crusaders romanticized? They were assholes

>implying vikings aren't just gypsys on a ship

Seriously, for once just do a quick search. Im sick of fuck vikings threads.

>tfw not a shypsy, in my sea caravan on the whale road

butthurt snownigger detected

>ancestors of people who created the modern world

What type of pizza did you get user?

Jesus christ OP is not a faggot he is just a giant fucking pussy please fuck of

That is correct but they were noted for brutality in times that were brutal to begin with which means they were bigger assholes than most assholes.

Exactly. So why are vikings so praised for what everyone else did as well?

Celts had the similar mindset and kicked their asses.

>Denmark and Norway created the modern world

Vikings are ancestors of the British?

because they did it way better than anyone else. similar reason to why the roman empire is praised

The Viking invasions of the British Isles shaped Scotland, Ireland (many cities in Ireland were viking settlements - Dublin itself was Norse until the English conquered it), and they basically formed a large part of England and its culture. Trial by jury being one of the more obvious Norse influences. The need to extract danegold for ransom also led to the development of an incredibly advanced tax infrastructure in England; this taxation relative to the actual wealth of the land allowed for England to be centralized rather quickly once it was unified. It's also what allowed the Dukes of Normandy to contest with the King of France once they acquired the Kingdom.

For most of its modern history, the British Isles have had an outsized influence on history due to their ability to raise revenue from a decidedly less populated, and significantly poorer, region of the world.

they left denmark and norway and settled in other countries

I think its fair to say britain created the modern world in part, you could say that they are the ancestors of the french through the normans though, they're not ancestors of germans though who probably had the biggest hand in creating the modern world

Most of the impressions we have from the Vikings are somehow deformed. Their major difference from the rest of the Europe was the religion. They didn't give a sailing shit for Jesus or any figure in the Catholic religion, so when ransoming villages, they stole all the gold from churches (which pretty much owned almost all of the village's money) and killed the priests, no regrets. Christians, in inner struggles, respected that kind of thing. So, as the virtually only source of knowledge at the time, the priests started describing the so-called Northmen as raiders from hell, violent and barbaric.

They were, indeed, more violent and had less scruples, but they also traded and built settlements, such as Kiev. When they found resistance, they killed, but it was not the only thing in their mind. They were as assholes as the rest of Europe, all of them over-romanticized. The kind of evidence we have directly from the Vikings does not, tho, help much on understanding their daily life and aspiration, and much of their history was told by out viewers and late historians.

Pic related: it is the Ship burial of a Rus chieftain as described by the Arab traveler Ahmad ibn Fadlan who visited Kievan Rus' in the 10th century. I took it from Wikipedia. This Arab's story was put in book by Michael Crichton and it is called " Eaters of the Dead: The Manuscript of Ibn Fadlan Relating His Experiences with the Northmen in A.D. 922". I recommend the reading if you want to learn more about the Vikings.

Holy fucking shit I just noticed that The 13th Warrior was based on this book

>but he's a master mind behind many of the horrible things that happened.
You do realize that anyone who's done a hint of research on wwii now knows you have no idea what you're talking about.

Does it really kill people to look up shit before they spew it off as fact?

I watched that movie yesterday and thought the same in the opposite order

Nice bullshit, Sven.

4 pizzas actually.
1 cheese and asiago, two pepperoni, one sausage and asiago.
Was pretty delicious, had to feed like 25 people.

they are chronologically far enough in hsitory to not have any real butthurt other than few autists and they were not feudal slave peasant unlike the rest of the europe

...

r u tryin to ruse me satan?

I didn't even know about the irish kicking the norse out of ireland before I came to Veeky Forums.

>Calling pillaging, sexually assaulting, looting raiders "assholes"

Research show though, that they were quite good builders, traders, discoverers as well. They founded many cities for one.

Do you think they were the only one to sexual assault people in those days?

Funny thing is that I probably bet that you are an atheist moron who shit on the christian narrative. Guess who fucking described the vikings.

What are you even on about?

A loan from Old Norse víkingr. Already in Old English as wīcing and Old Frisian witsing, wising, but extinct in Middle English and loaned anew in the 19th century.

Old Norse víking (“marauding”, “piracy”) itself is from Old Norse vík (“inlet”, “cove”, “fjord”) + -ing (“one belonging to”, “one who frequents”) (the -r is the nominative desinence). Thus, “one from or who frequents the sea’s inlets”,

The Old English or Anglo-Frisian form, existing therein since at least the eighth century), could also have been derived from or influenced by Old English wīc (“camp”), on account of the temporary encampments which were often a prominent feature of the Vikings’ raids.[1]

>Hitler
>mastermind

>4 pizzas actually.
>had to feed like 25 people.
youtube.com/watch?v=fcbj8BBsWSA

>They were the stereotypical barbarians.
They were traders. Calling the barbarians is straight up wrong.

Hitler was an unproductive, artsy, emotional sadboy bohemian.

>other cultures of the early middle ages weren't assholes

not an argument

>25 people
>4 pizzas
nah fuck off you liar

This is a pretty good read for anyone who thinks vikings were any worse than their contemporaries.

"Playing by whose rules? A further look at Viking atrocity in the ninth century"

Google it, click the first link, Veeky Forums thinks its spam for some reason so I cant post it here.

Why do people act like the people that lived in Sweden weren't vikings when we know geats followed the same routes that norwegians and danes took meanwhile swedes went east

>lost to saxons/anglos

I still think it's the hilarious that people keep saying this when Anglo-Saxons got cucked by Vikings for literally over a 100 years and their most celebrated Viking wrecker even paid Danegeld himself because he would have gotten wrecked himself at that point.

Jutes got wrecked by anglo-saxons and they were not vikings.

Unless we're talking about that one minor loss against Alfred, which still turned his "kingdom" into a danish vassal

fuck off chubby liar.

>mfw non-Russian Slav
>mfw local neopagans are norseaboos

>infantry

Because they were big and wild. They looked scary, worshiped scary gods, had wild customs.

The truth is they were armed fishermen who weren't afraid to brawl.

It's just that the individual Vikings who did conquer were so numerous and successful. When the last bastion of rome keeps some on retainer, I think that suggests that the vikes had a sort of "ubermensch" aura about them, even then, at least when it comes to hand-to-hand combat. Also they're probably the only people who had religious zealots willing to die to reach paradise besides the crusaders, who were also romanticized af.

That's totally flipped on its head today with affirmative action identity politics. I got threatened to be killed today for stopping at a stop sign to look at my phone for directions by a passing beg to in the ghetto. I was delivering a pizza to his fucking neighbor. I know why Vikings are popular. Its the last thing white people have left.

uh, the entire civilized world... the very manner in which you think and function has been dictated by the minds of those that shape reality itself, not just in doctrine but ethereally ...you are far too many layers deep to even realize, let alone deny the power held over every dimension of your being. we are the keepers of time, and it cycles so rapidly at thsi point that it flows right through you like satelite waves, bruh

>Dublin itself was Norse until the English conquered it

Why are there so many illiterate retards on this board?

He's right though

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Clontarf

Your point?

Allied Forces specifically prevented assassination of Hitler at the end of the war because he was the main factor of his own defeat.
Half of his general were trying to destitute him at the same time because he was batshit nuts and had no clue about strateg.
He only conquered europe becuse he had some good general and lieutenant, while the rest of europe was for too cuck to do anything about him until it was too late.

The point is you are both wrong and I have satisfactorily demonstarted my intellectual overlordship

How about you retard your own link retard

read*

because they made the court language French in england for centuries, thus you could claim they reromanticized England.

Maybe you should retard yourself from posting

>The point is you are both wrong
Source?

How about you post a source that says dublin was norse until the 14th century?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Dublin

Do you even speak english m8

>this fuckwit cant see that the rulers names change from norse to irish in the article he posted

Now go click on those names and see that they were Norse-Gaels and the names were of Norse origin

Dublin was a part of Lenister the whole time, so there you are wrong again

First post, best post.

How does that make me wrong? The last kings were Norse-Gaels. What does them accepting overlordship from Leinster have to do with anything?