Hey guys, so I'm a wonderful product of the American education system and I was wondering how historically accurate depictions of vikings as horrible brutalistic barbarians are? I mean, for example when you look at one of the biggest contemporary depictions of the Norsemen in media, the TV show Vikings, they're portrayed as these horrible barbarians that just slaughtered unarmed men, women, and children with a few shinning examples going against the grain, I highly doubt that a people that pioneered ship building in Europe and were the first from Europe to reach as far as Greenland and North America were these unrelenting savages. Were there different phases where once they reached the British Isles, etc, that they shaped up and became more "respectable"? I imagine a few posts can't sum it up very well but a TL;DR and if you guys have any suggested literature or other materials that someone looking for an accurate non-politicized version of Viking history and accolades?
Hey guys...
Other urls found in this thread:
...
Sounds like you're looking for emotional tracts instead of history, especially since you're looking fir evidence to support your predetermined conclusion. Every culture killed and raped people bro.
And yet this kind of shitpost won't get you banned but saying the N-word will.
Are you retarded? All I did was
>State that there are these preconceived notions
>I state that I'm questioning them
>I ask what the reality was
Oh but I guess I'm looking for "emotional tracts instead of history". Go fuck yourself
>Were there different phases where once they reached the British Isles, etc, that they shaped up and became more "respectable"?
not as such, but the original raids were done by farmers during times of poor harvest and merchants who found it was more profitable to just take shit instead of bartering. They were not really trained fighters and would have had limited arms and no armor. They were successful mainly because the coastal villages and monasteries had little to no defenses, but when the local lords dispatched their trained fighters to stop them the vikings invariably lost and retreated. The great heathen army that later came and conquered most of england were the military elite of the norselands, not mere raiders. The anglo-saxon monks who wrote histories of this era did not notice this difference and simply referred to them all as vikings.
So... there were phases? Anyway, thanks for a decent post. Are there any accounts about Norsemen from the Near East? I know they traveled up the Volga and got to the Caspian sea and were part of the Volga trade route but is there any good reading on this? Also what's up with the Shield Maiden meme? Were they just whores that went along? Were they fighters? What's the deal? Also please cite this last part
>go fuck yourself
Yeah not emotional about the topic at all bud.
When I said "preconceived notions", I was referring to you begging the question by implying that """vikings""" weren't violent, evidenced by you irrelevant mention of things like muh shipbuilding. Did you ever consider that maybe intelligence and savagery aren't mutually exclusive, or that savagery itself is an emotionally loaded word typically used to describe the enemies of one's culture? I'm sure the romans didn't consider themselves barbarians, either. "Barbarian" was just a pejorative for outsiders. Think about shit for a second before you get all hysterical.
>muh moral relativism
Anyway, I'll clarify since you're obviously too fucking illiterate to get it, all I was asking is what their set of rules were as far as innocent people go, if they, like in common culture, would just slaughter everyone or if they would not kill unarmed men, women, and children. That is all. You clearly have some emotional attachment to the subject though so maybe I shouldn't take your word with a grain of salt
>So... there were phases?
indeed, most viking activities were hit and run style raids of centers of wealth with no real interest in actual conquest, but there were a few times when strong leaders were able to bring a large force of actual soldiers to bear. At various times norsemen conquered much of england, the kievan rus, and normandy. However its important to note that "the vikings" were not a single monolithic entity but many different kingdoms often hostile to one another. As for the shield maidens they figure prominently into the sagas, but the reality was likely quite different. Women did go on raids but were more likely camp followers that weren't directly involved in the fighting. The only non-legendary account of viking women being active participants in battle is the siege of dorstolon in 971 which was an extremely dire situation for the vikings.
...
>indeed, most viking activities were hit and run style raids of centers of wealth with no real interest in actual conquest, but there were a few times when strong leaders were able to bring a large force of actual soldiers to bear.
Were they ever hired as mercenaries?
>At various times norsemen conquered much of england, the kievan rus, and normandy.
Neat
>However its important to note that "the vikings" were not a single monolithic entity but many different kingdoms often hostile to one another.
Well that's pretty much all people to be fair. England for most of it's history was just a collection of Kingdoms ever shifting with a common language.
>As for the shield maidens they figure prominently into the sagas, but the reality was likely quite different. Women did go on raids but were more likely camp followers that weren't directly involved in the fighting. The only non-legendary account of viking women being active participants in battle is the siege of dorstolon in 971 which was an extremely dire situation for the vikings.
This makes a lot of sense, thanks. No society in their right mind would willingly sacrifice their baby making machines, well at least one that would last.
...
>I don't have anything of value to say, so I'm going to put words in OP's mouth and then mock him for the foolish thing he didn't say.
Top notch level of discourse.
Part of the reason they're seemingly given focus is because the Vikings attacked the British isles (among other places), and a great deal of perspective in English language history is drawn from the British.
Note: "Viking" is drawn from Old Norse and refers to the raiders that left Scandinavia, not the ones who preferred to hang back. When they went home they were just Danes again (or wherever their home was).
The Vikings were that bad. Not that others were entirely innocent, but the Vikings were godawful. The Vikings showing up means you were losing everything you had of value that you couldn't hide and they were carrying off whoever they liked as slaves, from rowers to wives. Often they'd just go ahead and kill peasants and clergy as well, and jerk themselves off over their "heroic valor in battle."
A big part of their danger was that they attacked anywhere they liked without warning and could do their thing and be gone before local military forces could be summoned. They generally weren't anything special in a real battle against military forces; they tended to avoid real fights and seek easy targets, like monasteries and unwalled villages.
In a brutal time, they were among the worst. Their reputation was earned. Whether or not they were "totally sweet" is a matter of perspective.
>would just slaughter everyone or if they would not kill unarmed men, women, and children
from Alcuin of York's, a deacon, letter to King Æthelred of Northumbria recounting the raid on Lindisfarne monestary. I think it shows the shock and horror at the brutality of the vikings.
>the pagans have desecrated God's sanctuary, shed the blood of saints around the altar, laid waste the house of our hope and trampled the bodies of the saints like dung in the street. I can only cry from my heart before Christ's altar: "O Lord, spare thy people and do not give the Gentiles thine inheritance, lest the heathen say, 'Where is the God of the Christians?'"
>What assurance can the churches of Britain have, if Saint Cuthbert and so great a company of saints do not defend their own? Is this the beginning of the great suffering, or the outcome of the sins of those who live there? It has not happened by chance, but is the sign of some great guilt.
>You who survive, stand like men, fight bravely and defend the camp of God. Remember how Judas Maccabaeus cleansed the Temple and freed the people from a foreign yoke. If anything needs correction in your way of gentleness, correct it quickly. Recall your patrons who left you for a season. It was not that they lacked influence with God, but they were silent, we know not why.
(cont)
>from Alcuin of York's, a deacon, letter to King Æthelred of Northumbria recounting the raid on Lindisfarne monestary. I think it shows the shock and horror at the brutality of the vikings.
I'm not talking about ancedotal accounts, I'm talking about Norse rules and procedures.
Also, most of the time when one talks about vikings, one should actually be talking about pirates, raiders, explorers, traders. Once you start using "viking" as a general overarching term, you start mixing up too much things. Using "vikings" where you shouldn't will lead you to develop the following misconceptions.
>only norsemen were vikings
>inland people were also vikings
>norsemen were the only civilized people around the Baltic sea
>all the other people lived in mud huts
>every rich polity around Baltic Sea was at somepoint founded by muh vikings
>Do not be dismayed by this disaster. God chastises every son whom he accepts, so perhaps he has chastised you more because he loves you more. Jerusalem, a city loved by God was destroyed, with the Temple of God, in Babylonian flames. Rome, surrounded by its company of holy apostles and countless martyrs, was devastated by the heathen, but quickly recovered through the goodness of God. Almost the whole of Europe has been denuded with fire and sword by Goths and Huns, but now by God's mercy is as bright with churches as the sky with stars and in them the offices of the Christian religion grow and flourish. Encourage each other, saying, "Let us return to the Lord our God, for he is very forgiving and never deserts those who hope in him."
>And you, holy father, leader of God's people, shepherd of a holy flock, physician of souls, light set on a candle-stick, be a model of all goodness to all who can see you, a herald of salvation to all who hear you. May your community be of exemplary character, to bring others to life, not to damnation. Let your dinners be sober, not drunken. Let your clothes befit your station. Do not copy the men of the world in vanity, for vain dress and useless adornment are a reproach to you before men and a sin before God. It is better to dress your immortal soul in good ways than to deck with fine clothes the body that soon rots in dust. Clothe and feed Christ in the poor, that so doing you may reign with Christ. Redemption is a man's true riches. If we loved gold we should send it to heaven to be kept there for us. We have what we love: let us love the eternal which will not perish. Let us love the true, not the transitory, riches. (cont, sorry)
rules and procedures? What the hell are you talking about? There were no rules or procedures.
>Let us win praise with God, not man. Let us do as the! saints whom we praise. Let us follow in their footsteps on earth, to be worthy to share their glory in heaven. May divine goodness keep you from all adversity and bring you, dear brothers, to the glory of the heavenly kingdom with your fathers. When our lord King Charles returns from defeating his enemies, by God's mercy, I plan to go to him, and if I can then do anything for you about the boys who have been carried off by the pagans as prisoners or about any other of your needs, I shall make every effort to see that it is done.
>Fare well, beloved in Christ, and be ever strengthened in well-doing.
>rules and procedures? What the hell are you talking about? There were no rules or procedures.
Every single society has rules and procedures that regulate conduct, they have norms, etc. Just because they may not have been recorded doesn't mean they're real.
are you talking about VIKINGS or are you talking about NORSE
THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE
Fuck, I meant
>*Just because they may not have been recorded doesn't mean they didn't have them
wew
Moral relativism is prescriptivist and normative, which isn't what I'm advocating, and isn't a catchall term for any metaethical outlook that rejects moral realism, either. But even your usage of the word "innocent" betrays that you're completely unable to look beyond your current societal lens in even a descriptive sense. There was no nation in history where warriors followed some homogeneous honor code, the people who kill for a living follow it about as predictably as you'd expect. The entire reason chivalry was invented was because there were practically no rules of engagement in the era you're describing. The fact that you think """"vikings""" weren't a meme proves you know nothing about the subject. You're literally just rejecting me offhandedly because I'm pointing out your obvious confirmation bias.
well said user
Both
>more muh moral relativism
wew
No, but at the same time, you can't just baselessly assume they existed. Certain concepts like rule of law that seem obviously necessary to us were not always so in the past.
>violence is universal
>omg how relative
>violence is universal thus the way of metering culture around violence is completely relative and subjective and follows no trends of human behavior
lel
>rejecting his argument out of hand without even the barest attempt at a refutation
My friend, I hate to say it, but you're revealing what board you came here from. We do things a little differently around here.
Yeah, I'm a /mlp/ native. XD
>inb4 An non-argument does not beget an argument.
I hope you consider yourself abhorrent right now for not supporting the Plant's Rights movement or whatever the fuck becomes the dominant ethical framework in 2000 years.
>metaethical nihilism is contingent upon subject moral values despite universally rejecting them outright as a premise
Holy shit it's the most clueless man of all time.
>ever letting the word "nihilism" pass your lips or finger tips
Absolutely decadent
>muh feels: the post
Keep trying to shoehorn all of history into your perfect ethical lens, user. You'll get far.
If you don't want to judge the Vikings by modern standards of barbarism then just go and read that letter posted in this thread to understand how the Vikings were viewed by their contemporaries. A scourge of god comparable to the Babylonians or Huns.
>trying to find objective measures of societies is a bad thing
Wew
Yeah, I'm sure they were viewed that way by their enemies. I'm also sure that they saw themselves as heroic, and that both of these sentiments reflect something about the speaker moreso than some actual fact of history.
>I'm also sure that they saw themselves as heroic
why are you sure about that?
>calling all moral statements factually incorrect is the same as a normative moral system that advocates tolerance for contradicting ethical systems
Stop embarassing yourself
Well, that's one point where I concede I may be wrong, but the sagas certainly seem to portray it that way. Every culture has people with differing ethical views, but why would they go out and raid if they felt so bad about it? Almost nobody in history considers themselves The Bad Guy. In any case, universality != objectivity on a prescriptive level so I don't think that would undermine my argument even if true.
>trying to find
You mean "inventing".
>quite literally jerking yourself off over semantics
its worth noting that for the most part the sagas take place entirely within the norselands and are mostly about feuds between clans, family histories and what you might consider questing heroes.
Atleast that's the case for the ones that I've read, which are Egil's Saga, the people of Vatnsdal, and the people of Laxardal.
Semantics are important for any level of deeper understanding in any subject, because without them points of finer discussion are unclarified, and certain cognitive biases held in the implications of language go unchallenged. You "find" or "discover" a continent, or scientific laws (in both the Humean and non-Humean sense). But in their genesis, a normative framework that attempts to categorize and compel human boundaries is "invented". Any attempt to contrive an ought from an is is fundamentally arbitrary.
True, much of the violence is merely a backdrop to legal drama, but I was obviously talking about non-domestic ones involving figures such as erik and ragnar. Against both of our cases, these are somewhat mythical and I doubt either of us speak the original languages.
"The next attack came at night as the Vikings do in their usual fashion to collect their 'Danegeld'." -History of Friese
Vikings were shit.
Something to remember is that vikings were elite raiders, the majority of people that are painted with the "viking" brush were just Norse settlers.
replace Vikings with Germanics and you got a deal
everyone were violent thugs that slaughtered and raided whatever isn't nailed down at that time. It was just that Christianity gave some semblance of order to the older Germanics that settled in Europe whereas the Vikings weren't Christianized yet so they looked at the holy Churches and saw "unguarded buildings full of treasure and virgin women"
After being Christianized (and set to various alliances and fealties) they became proton-Scandinavian states that conquered and set up trading routes pretty much everywhere.
really the fact they were fucking everywhere (including North America) was a tale more awesome then the horny vikings that raided everything which is why that story is gaining popularity.
>"wew" is now, somehow, an argument
back into your pen
Viking didn't bring irrigation and laws
>Literally Veeky Forums
Sounds like you are a moron that can't do research on his own.
>american education
Here's a tip only Scandinavian countries have in depth lessons on them