Why are vikings so overrated? It seems they are only so famous because they were blonde and blue eyed...

Why are vikings so overrated? It seems they are only so famous because they were blonde and blue eyed. Had they been ugly chinks from half across the world, there'd be no media about them.

Vikings were not even good warriors against the people they fought. For people who have a reputation for ferocity not only did they lose the majority of pitched battles but were cowardly to the extreme. I'm really not impressed that they killed some unarmed farmers and monks and then got stomped the second anyone put up a fight.

They were only good sailors.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Battles_involving_the_Vikings
twitter.com/AnonBabble

OP literally copy-pasted a post I had made in a thread about Vikings some days ago, and used it as the OP for his new thread. I don't know if I should feel flattered, this kind of things don't happen every day.

Tbh it was on my mind and when I saw your post I thought it was well articulated enough to just copy and paste it. The point still stands that I think that vikings are overrated and I would like to know just why the hell they're so praised and loved despite being very meh.

>bad warriors
>conquered england thrice
>conquered russia
>conquered normandy
wew

Because they impacted the Anglos a lot, and Anglos have disproportionate pop culture influence.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Battles_involving_the_Vikings

>Conquered England
They just conquered a bunch of petty kingdoms with small populations but when they got to the most densely populated one(Wessex) they got kicked in the ass and pushed back to Scandinavia

>Conquered Russia
Not really, they only settled in a small area near the Volga river and eventually assimilated in the Slavic culture and religion. The descendants of these Norsemen who settled down would eventually conquer surrounding tribes but when the Mongols arrived they got ass raped by them and Kievan Rus disapperead forever.

>Conquered Normandy
True, but Normandy is not even a Kingdom.

You're both really stupid tbqh

meant to also reply to

>They just conquered a bunch of petty kingdoms with small populations but when they got to the most densely populated one(Wessex) they got kicked in the ass and pushed back to Scandinavia
Sweyn and Cnut both conquered the entire kingdom of England, Wessex included.

>ur stupid
>can't reply properly
nice job.

I'm very tired, what's your excuse?

desu I'm also very tired but I'm not going to make an excuse, vikings didn't do much at all and yet they're seen as even greater warriors and conquerors than the Mongols who occupied and controlled a huge amount of land when all they did was fuck with a bunch of poor defenseless people and get their shit kicked in.

I don't think you're stupid because you're pointing out they're overrated, I think you're stupid because of how far off the mark you are to why they're overrated.

Thank you for adding so much to the discussion.

Not really here for that just here to call you peabrain
>It seems they are only so famous because they were blonde and blue eyed
like how dumb do you have to be to think something like that.

And Cnut is the only other King of England besides based Alfred that earned the epithet "The Great". Unlike Guillaume le Bâtard, Cnut was not just a conqueror, but he was an administrator that won the hearts and minds of his Anglo-Saxon subjects. A pity that Cnut's sons were wastes of air because if they had been up to par with their father, the Norman Conquest wouldn't have happened.

Thats only speculative
I come from Norman blood and even I admit that if Harold didn't have to fight a battle then force march his way down the entire country, with out his archers, We probably wouldn't of won at Hastings.
Even a great king would of been hard pressed to win two pitched battles in such a short of time.

I said that because Viking series. Nobody would want to watch a series about a bunch of slanted eye horse fuckers in the middle of nowhere. But it seems like everyone wants to watch a show about buffed sailors with fashionable long blonde hair who go around raping nuns and decapitating priests. Vikings are perfect for making media, but Mongols aren't. THat's why Vikings are more famous in the Western world.

I agree that England was royally fucked in 1066. It suffered TWO invasions; one in the north and then the south several weeks later.

Everyone forgets about Fulford Gate, the 1st battle of 1066. Had Edwin and Morcar been able to defeat Harald Siggurdson's army there or at least, shut the gates of York and hold until Harold comes up with reinforcements, England would've lost less men. Especially veteran huscarls and thegns.

The Bastard of Normandy was a lucky sob. The flower of English nobility died in Hastings, hence why there was no effective leadership to take charge and repel the Normans.

Harold should've just been content as kingmaker and the right-hand man like his father Godwin was to Cnut. He should've allowed Edgar Atheling crowned as king since he had more claim that anyone else. Edgar was the last Cerdicing of Wessex. William can't claim that Harold broke oath because that would've meant a civil war if Edgar was denied by the Godwinsons.

No bitching to the Pope means no Papal Banner which means less mercenaries and other foreign troops to join the Bastard's pillaging expedition.

>conquered England
They did not conquer England. They skirmished with Saxon Earldoms and lost half the battles. The only time they held land was during intermediary times in the war. Gaining land in a campaign only to lose it almost immediately after is not conquering.
>conquered Russia
The old Russia Empire, the ol' Russian nation way back in history times.
THERE WAS NO FUCKING RUSSIA YOU LITERAL MONGOLOID!
The Swedes started a dynasty and settled there. The Slavs didn't mind. The ones that did beat the shit out of them so much they wrote stories about Vendr victories more than Swedish victories.
>conquered Normandy
You do realize they were given Normandy, GIVEN Normandy with the stipulation they would prevent other vikings from attacking the French countryside, right?
They gained Normandy by losing a battle, not by winning.

>conquered England

Yeah no.

It's the same reason noone wants to watch a show about Serbian history, although Serbian history is 1000000x cooler and more epic than vikings mongols and egyptians

>It's the daily "non-white person makes a hate thread about vikings"

And then you get a few equally insecure non-whites who agree because they too feel threatened or inferior to the vikings, and you have the actual historians posting facts about vikings proving they were not diaper-shitting babies and actually achieved considerable conquests, and then you have the tired faggots like me who just wish this board wasn't so shitty but has nothing better to do than whine about it.

...

...

...

loooool look at those weaklings

>muh danelaw

>local whites clear beach of subhumans

Oh it is this thread again, stay mad fags

Yeah that byzantine freak and those Snail eaters are bunch of weak pussies

>Finland
>Scandinavian or even Nordic
Fuck off.

Hahaha yeah right. You will all be part of the caliphate in less than 20 years!

*cringes*

a bunch of those are viking on viking and a bunch are also viking victories

Vikings, in particular those who settled Iceland, wrote quite a bit of liturature which serves as our window into the old Germanic world. Also 19th century Romanticism.

Vikings were created in 19th century by Victorian romanticist's

THIS

>>conquered Mercia and Northumbria
>>settled near Novgorod and Kiev
>>were given Normandy by the Franks

they did conquer england though, both cnut the great and sweyn forkbeard did

Vikings
Pros: Great Sailors, traders, slavers and raiders

Cons: Problem with fighting trained armies(the saxon selected fyrd) and facing heavycavalry(frankish scola knights). mostly outnumbered on the battlefield

OP, I blame the show Vikings and Normies.

Why are Vikings romanticized? Media like that and historical reductionism that doesn't really paint an accurate picture. Normies are stupid and cling to simplistic ideas and concepts. When looking at Vikings, there's two simplified ideas/conclusions people come to: A) Vikings were badass proto-vikings who terrified and kicked ass all across europe, or B) Vikings were overhyped pussies who only fought monks and peasants, were uncultured savages, and ran at the first sign of a fight.

As with all things, the reality is a lot more complex. In terms of martial prowess, yes, lots of people overestimate the Norse peoples of the low medieval period.

I've always been interested in the Vikings and have been doing lots of reading on them lately. Pic related is the stack of books I'm reading through- I'm about 90% of the way through that Icelandic Saga book. I'm no expert on any of this but it's a topic I always like discussing.

First of all, you don't get a period of history named after you for nothing. 793-1066AD is called the Viking Age with good reason, but not because they were kicking ass and taking names the entire time. There's a lot more to the Norse people and their influence on Europe (primarily the North Atlantic) at the time than raiding or war; however, when it was the English, French, and HRE writing and storing records at the time, what we know comes from their perspective rather than the Norse one- although Nordic Sagas can provide a glimpse at Viking Age Scandinavia, they're not as reliable sources, as they're written hundreds of years after the events of the sagas take place.

It's true that there was a great diaspora of Norse peoples at the time, which corresponds with a great influence on other cultures.

Continuing in my following post.

Rather than conquering and taking land, it appears that the most successful Norse settlers came in peace, either as immigrants to pre-existing communities or colonizers of unclaimed/uninhabited regions (Iceland, Greenland, the Orkneys, etc.)

Similarly, the Vikings weren't just pirates- they were traders. It's commonly believed that ship crews were usually both at the same time. Whether they traded with locals or raided them had to do with which was more profitable at the time, but it's more likely than not that most wealth was accrued through peaceful trade. After all, bartering with your neighbors is going to produce a more stable source of income than sacking their houses.

If anything is underrated about the Norsemen of the time, it's their seamanship. At the time, nothing could really compare to the Viking Longship. It was a technological marvel that could navigate rivers, shallow waters and open sea with equal ease. Modern sailors of reproduction longships agree that, though they have some strange sailing characteristics, the Norse longship is fast and surprisingly survivable over rough seas.

They were incredible navigators as well- although they would primarily sail along the shore line in search of a specific river or inlet, crossing the ocean was required to reach the British Isles, Iceland, and Greenland. Although they had no compasses, it seems that the Norsemen were really good at gauging lattitude, and would sail mostly flat, straight East-West courses to cross oceans. Positioning of the sun and stars were used, but some historians believe Norsemen navigated open ocean more by relying on familiar patterns of wildlife. For example, certain birds fly so far from shore, so to get to Greenland you might sail straight past Iceland close enough that you see X variety of bird, but not Y or Z, etc.

Continuing again

Their ships and sailing techniques not only let them cross the North Atlantic and land in fucking Canada, of all places, they could sail along river routes such as the Volga and Dnieper to reach the Caspian Sea and Mediterranean Ocean, putting them into contact with the Byzantines and the Abbasid Caliphate.

Did you know that in Viking-Age silver hoards found buried in Sweden, Arabic Dirham coins outnumber English and Scandinavian-minted ones? While it's possible portions of that wealth came from raids, it's more likely than not that this is the fruit of highly lucrative trade with Arabs, most likely through the form of slaves (which, I suppose, does come back to patterns of Norse raiding)

Though Viking Raids were obviously destructive (especially whenever they struck monasteries, which were usually destroyed completely as well as looted), Norse traders connected a remote island like Britain to a huge international trade network. The city of Dublin may have been settled before the Viking Age, but it was the Norse Traders who relied on the city as a hub that caused it to grow into a notable city.

Norse presence and interactions with locals in England varied, and this is where I'm really stepping out of the area of just what I (think I) know, but their influence is still palpable. Most of the most commonly used words in English are Nordic in origin. Words like 'sister', 'fog', 'scowl', 'awkward', 'fellow', 'friend', 'window', 'smile'... the list just goes on and on. Lots of place names in England are scandinavian in origin (pretty much any town name ending in '-by'), and lots of common English names are, likewise, Scandinavian in origin. The Norsemen who settled in proto-Russia were quick to integrate, but the Varangians and Rus' were distinctly influenced by both Slavic and Scandinavian culture.

good posts, family.

I'll wrap this up by saying that while many overestimate the Vikings for their skill at arms, I think there's a lot more to them, their culture, and Viking Age history to be interested in.

IMO, I think the neatest things about them are their democratic and fairly egalitarian society (pre-Christianization), their seamanship, and that adventurous spirit that had them travelling across the North Atlantic and down to the Mediterranean Sea.

I fucking hate the show 'Vikings', but I think I've gone on long enough about other random shit, so I won't open up that can of worms.

Thanks for putting up with my autistic ramblings about Norsemen, Veeky Forums

Also, the Icelandic Sagas have been surprisingly comfy. Very relatable and very human.

Thanks, user!

>vikings were cowardly to the extreme
Their fucking religion said you only get to come to heaven (valhalla) if you die in combat and they completely believed in this and wanted to end up in valhalla. You honestly dont know what you're talking about.

Not only that, but they were fatalistic and believed that you died when you were meant to die and lived when you were meant to live, and nothing could change that, so you might as well live well and hope to die well.

Now, just because that's what they believed doesn't mean that's what they practiced. There's plenty of examples of characters in Norse Sagas fleeing from greater odds (the outlaw Gisli Sursson spends much of his saga outsmarting and evading parties of men hunting him down rather than fighting them).

Then again, it seems this stems not from a fear of death but rather a desire to keep living, if that makes any sense.

>its a vikingboo thread
WE

Sea People >>> Vikings

story of the sea people pls

easy to conquer stuff when you're white niggers who have no aspiration to build or maintain anything

what Viking buildings remain?

they held Europe back by 200 years

>being this historically illiterate

But they were not 'Vikings', they were the kings of Denmark and Norway. Vikings were Pagan, these guys you are talking about were Catholics

Viking is a term that applies to Norse peoples of the early medieval period. It doesn't denote Pagan or Christian. If you really want to be particular, you might use it to discriminate pirates and raiders (the actual meaning of 'Viking') from non-raiding Norsemen.

Cnut, Sweyn Fork-Beard, Harald Hardrada were all Christian, but they were Norsemen all the same.

Be gone smelly Pagan.

Fuck off Sven

They are praised because it was the only time when Denmark was feared in the world. It's basically Danish propaganda.

t. Dane

Yep, the last "Viking" of Denmark was Svend Estridson

marton and basing were both viking victories
stamford bridge is a shitty example, because a fuckton of the saxon army got killed fighting a numerical inferior foe (also, nice not mentioning the one axeman who cleaved down 40 saxons and basically holding the entire saxon back alone)

svolder was a viking on viking battle

the fighting against the franks ended up with the vikings being given normandy and in the process creating the normans who would later go on to conquer england. the siege of paris was also the first out of thirteen times the franks paid the danegeld to the vikings, so not exactly a big defeat overall.
when the great heathen army came to england, 3 out of the 4 petty kingdoms were conquered and brought under the danelaw. pretty good score if you ask me

in conclusion, nice cherrypicking