Is it okay to like vikings even though they're overused?

>Not liking horned helmet
PLEBS

Like what you want, dude.

If you go for legit norse stuff and understand that there was a whole society behind the raiders? Nothing wrong with that, norse mythology and society was pretty cool.

If it's just about manly bearded raiders who kill shit and wear studded leather, then nah it's not cool at all.

I always got the opposite feeling from Norse Mythology, it felt a lot like the message was that your fate is pre-ordained and unavoidable, sure people and gods try and fail to fight against it but that also happens in a lot of mythologies. If there's a particular story or cultural aspect you think I might be unfamiliar with I'd love to hear it.

Ironic shitposting is still shitposting

Well, there are two interpretations of Ragnarok.

One is the Terminal Ragnarok: Aka, the end of the Gods period, This ending is final, and the vision Odin is given is that all the gods die.

In the legend however, Some Gods DO survive Ragnarok, as well as men. This is generally accepted as the "Christian" Ragnarok.

However, another interpretation is Ragnarok is circular, that the Gods Ebb and Flow in waves of resurgence and decline.

Both Theories though, Show Odin as predicting Ragnarok through the Norns and though Odin's preperations, Saves enough people for the Ragnarok to not be the destruction of all.

One of the biggest representations of this is Baldr, Whose Death and binding in Hel is the start of Ragnarok.

Badlr actually ironically also ends Ragnarok, because when Hel throws open the gates of Helheim Baldr is freed and takes his place as the head of the Aesir and the penultimate god until the cycle begins again.

This strike out against Fatalism I think came about because living in Scandinavia or even Germania at the time was Harsh, Cold and cruel.

So the Peoples there needed Gods who were determined, Kind and Warming to fight off those evil personifications of nature.

I mean the whole reason Thor works as a hilarious Superhero expy is because he was titled "Protector of Mankind"

>Norse mythology differs from most major European mythologies
But thats wrong, they all have the same underpinning concepts. You even said this later in your own post. I wish people didn't see the norse branch of germanic paganism as some special magical snowflake thing.

But it is fundamentally different.

Germanic, Norse and Slavic all interpret divine intervention in a much different tone.

In the Med, the Blessings and curses of the Gods are a sort of Divine Blackmail, The gods do whatever they want and to curry their favor is seen as better than to incur their wrath through ignorance of folly.

In Northern European Mythology, The Gods are pleaded to to help survive, To protect them from the unsavory elements of nature.

This is because fundmentally, the Med cultures developed into larger stable city states while the Northern Cultures did not.

Probably, at the time, Greek culture was probably closer to Divine interpretation.

You have to understand, Fatalism in Greece was seen as a possible query.

Fatalism in say Bronze Age Estonia would fucking kill you.

i saw it all as more of a "How do you face your fate" rather than a fight against it. It seems pretty set that all men must die and Ragnarok is coming but rather than sitting idly by and letting it happen, you can do something about it. Not fight against it, mind you, but rather that you can be prepared, face it with courage, and meet the encounter head on. The Norns weaving your tapestry have already determined all the events of your life and it is up to you how you face those events: as a coward, or as a warrior.

In addition, the way these gods were worshiped was also very interesting. Generally, there were not many temples, or priests, very few taxes, and little clerical control over the populace. The role of the gods was that they were beseeched when needed, placated when angry, and generally stayed out of people's lives. The gods weren't there to punish or to help but rather to watch and reward. Hel and her realm weren't really thought of as a place of punishment but really more a continuation of a man's harsh life. While it wasn't the lavish halls of Asgard or Valhalla, it also wasn't particularly there to make somebody follow the dictates of a moral code. It is this distinction that contrasts it so well to Christianity.

Finally, there wasn't really a moral code of good vs. bad. Instead, most things revolved around Law vs. Chaos. While these may have had some good and evil connotations, they weren't expressly made to be such. This makes the whole system much more interesting to me, personally, to explore.

Also, pic related, I guess?

One imporant thing is that Odin's preparations allowed Humanity and the Gods to survive.

The Norns predicted Ragnarok would end Odin's rule and plunge the Aesir dynasty into ruin.

But Odin bent the rules and this is what allowed people to survive.

Yea, that is kind of what i was getting at. Even the prediction of Ragnarok is not an event with a set ending but rather a set event. Ragnarok is going to happen, that is fact. But it is how Odin faces it that is able to change, where he has a choice in what he does and how he does it.

The difference is really in what Fate means to the culture. For Christianity and even many Greco-Roman cultures, Fate is determined and unable to be undermined. The actions and outcomes are already predetermined. For the Norse, Fate is simply a collection of events with very few set outcomes. You may not be able to avoid the things that are going to happen, but you can choose how you face the events and that determines the outcome of the events, or at least part of the outcome.

Ultimately I think this is because Fatalism is fine for civilized people living in a big city or a calm med farmland

But to be as Fatalistic as that living in Bronze Age Northern Europe is both pointless and probably deadly

imagine hating water because water is overused

no reason to like or hate something simply because they are more or less popular

Nope.

How about using some other Germanic cultures rather than "vikings" (correct term is norsemen).
How about you focus on Anglo Saxons, or Vandals, or even the continental Germanic Tribes with hexagonal shields that fought against rome?

All of those concepts are far better than "dude cool vikings bro epic sea raiders".

These people tend to ignore that the norse were a tribal group, and only formed into states later on. And that before they formed into states the norse had no cities, roads, etc, because they were tribal.

Because Christanity more actively took a role in destroying their native Mythologies.

They're still 99% more interesting than the cliche "hehehhe norse guys hahah".

Additionally, if you use the Anglo Saxons or Continental Germanics, you can make them more unique, and less people will think you're copying the viking cliche that is going on .

>You can make them more unique
>Because.... shield shapes.

See, the point is this thread has a fucking Philosophical debate on the nature of Norse Mythology and indeed northern European Mythology.

And here you are spamming Aesthetic choices are a fucking shit to begin with.

>You can make the Anglo Saxons more unique than the Norse

Fucking How? During the time their Aesthetics were almost identical.

And by that time Anglo Saxons were christian, so they loose their entire mythos.

Nope. Germanic tribes used less mail, helmets and armour, and often went into battle naked. And they were just better than cliche norsemen. They didn't use shieldwalls, they used guerrilla tactics. They weren't civilised, unlike the semi civilised norsemen.
kys.
I'm talking about early anglo saxons, not pleb tier late saxons.

>ywn never fuck romans up so well that they have to warp their entire society and military structure to deal with you

East Vikings are underused.

Is that horse walking in a lake of piss?

They've unwittingly entered a Magical Realm. It's why everyone in that picture looks so upset.

But I like shieldwalls and armored dudes.

I think we just have different tastes.

>imagine hating water because water is overused

I think that's how rabies works, user.

>thrall system
>swedes vs geats vs danes
>lawspeakers
>village/tribal/regional Things/assemblies where freemen can vote
>a legal "system" based on compensation and reconciliation in the absence of centralised, god-given authority
The norse are fucking great, dude. They were arguably the last group to start giving up germanic traditions (not too surpising considering their geographical location and the fact that pretty much all the other germanic peoples had wandered south/west/eastward from there).

Like with being a fan of anything, don't be dumb about it and you're fine.

I do what I want.

Anglo-Saxon aesthetics are different. They have a more late Roman influence than the Norse. Most of the impressive helmets we see as Anglo-Saxon are just budget or re-skinned Roman/Persian ridge helmets. This is why their helmets have cheek and neck plates while the Norse seem to have not used them as often and if they did have metal neck guards they were more primitive.

The A-S favored covering their shields in animal hides while the Norse preferred to paint them, migration era shields for the A-S also seem to have been smaller and they grew in size over time until many eventually adopted the Norman kite shields. Viking clothing would have been closer to Anglo-Saxon clothing during their own migration to Britain, (less distinction according to social rank), during their stay in Britain they English began to dress much more nicely, brooches, necklaces, crosses etc.

Hair is another difference, the English preferred shorter hair and mustaches generally speaking while the Norse preferred beards and longer hair. Some people were chastised by their fellow English for wearing their hair in a similar fashion to the vikings and so cutting it short and being removing beards became more common as well.

They also had very interesting ideas of Kingship, the Heptarchy is honestly a very unique system compared to the rest of Europe at the time for example. I would also just like to say that the English were an EXTREMELY suspicious/paranoid/worried about pagan gods and spirits even centuries after they converted to Christianity. Many of their weapons found today are found in or near rivers, suggesting ritual sacrifice. They also believed in evil spirits and elves+dwarves long after they became Christians, there are also records of magic charms and rituals that could be performed to drive away such evil creatures. There are also written records of a witch in England as late as 1046 who gave some very odd instructions for her burial.

>thrall system
>Anglos vs saxons vs Jutes
>lawspeakers
>village/tribal/regional Things/assemblies where freemen can vote
>a legal "system" based on compensation and reconciliation in the absence of centralised, god-given authority

Anglo-Saxons had all these things...

Yeah no shit, both the angles and the saxons were germanics with their origins in what became "norse". They went christian and feudal though (the latter which the norse never quite did).

You actually have it reversed.

Vikings had Shorter hair than the Saxons.

Saxons were very particular about Hair, They prefered it long and braided.

They didn't "go feudal" until the Normans dragged them kicking and screaming, by which point the Danes, Swedes and Norwegians had also done the same. The Normans ended slavery and imposed Norman legal systems and systems of governance upon them. Anglo-Saxon burhs served a completely different purpose to Norman motte and bailey forts.

The later period Anglo-Saxons were closer to Anglo-Dane-Saxons, Harold Godwinson was half-Danish and the Godwins had served Danish interests for decades. The Danish settlement in England became a big problem for the Saxons in the South who had to rely on Normans to assist them in the years leading up to 1066.

Unless you've bought all Burzum songs and live 100% according to Varg's teachings you can't be a true Norseboo

Sweden never really adopted the feudal system. The danes did, however.

I'll take romanticized Wagner vikings over grimderp, edgy realism anyday.

Stop using vikings

>tfw people can't tell the difference between an Anglo-Saxon soldier and a Norseman from but a glance

Your pic isn't remotely "viking."

grimderp, edgy realism VIKANGS aren't realistic either. (the ones dressed like ancient bikers, like from the pic above)

Overused doesnt mean bad, it means used a lot.

Only a pretentious contrarian would assume its wrong to use something popular, no matter if you like it or not.

Yeah but middle europe=shit
Only the outlying people of europe arent complete dogshit.

One thing the north had that the south did not was more advanced grooming techniques and tools.
Combs, scissors and warm water bath that isn't reused by the entire family. Also cleaning your hands before and after eating.

The vikings were kinda gay about cleanlyness.

The Ancient Germanic cultures have a wealth of aesthetic and narrative value, and are a great well of inspiration. But they've also been heavily bastardized and misused in many ways.
A setting that stays truer to the heart of the myths and aesthetics, without being too cheesy or revisionist, would be truly beautiful.
Blood brothers, dragon slayers, feuds, a plethora of archetypal myths and aesthetics to call upon.

Have you tried doing whatever you want because people's opinions on what you like don't matter? I've had good results with that approach.

I agree with you in that continental germanics have more flexibility because you don't have to work around cliches, but the vikings were also cool as fuck

>overused
Yeah they conquered the world. Give them a break.

>looking for approval of others
>particularly random anons on Veeky Forums
dude...

>conquered the world.

They conquered like a couple islands and a coastline and even that's debatable.

t. guy who likes vikings

You're communicating in a Germanic language right now because of them.

Checkmate.

While using the Latin alphabet which is used across the planet.

Phonecian Supremasists are so annoying

>6th century Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians

>Vikangs

English was spoken in Britain long before the vikings existed

Nobody debates whether Rome conquered the world, user.

>anglo-saxon
>saxon
really fires the ol' synapses

>vikangs
>an off-season activity for a certain group of germanics
Like calling the americans Marines.

More or less. It was just their word for "pirate."

Damn straight.

Also the ultimate fatalism and collapse at the end of Götterdämmerung is probably darker than anything you'd get with grimderp realism anyway. The passions of humans and gods are uncontrollable - fate is inexorable - everything will be taken by water and fire in the end.

Of course. If you had to stop liking overused things, you'd never have anything to like anymore.

But even beyond that, they are a legitimately interesting culture, and it's hard to escape that idea of hardy northern warriors.

I'm communicating in a germanic language because of the Angles, Jutes and Saxons. None of those are Scandinavians, Varg.

Imagine having rabies

>The Horned Helmet Chad
>The Gambeson Virgin

>Is it okay to like something?

>liking le cheesy anachorism
>>>/reddit/

>Germanic language

hell thats a valid question on this board.

>Is it okay to like vikings even though they're overused?

no. your appreciation of anything must be balanced against the number and composition of that thing's fans

Disliking something because it's "overused" is stupid.

Like something if you want to, don't let other people tell you what you can and can't like.

preach

the normans were descended from vikings, and they pretty much conquered the world

By the time they began all their famous escapades they had lived and inter-bred with the French for 6-7 generations. They spoke a French dialect, fought like the French, followed a French King and French laws and worshiped the Christian God. Their conquests are England, the Principality of Antioch and much of Southern Italy, this is by no means much of the world.

>Yeah but England conquered the world
After the dynasty of William the conqueror (House of Normandy) died out England was ruled by very French dynasties for hundreds of years. By the time England and Great Britain begin their colonial Empire they were ruled by Scots and Dutch and eventually German monarchs.

>So the Peoples there needed Gods who were determined, Kind and Warming to fight off those evil personifications of nature.
How do you account for them putting Odin as the supreme god then? When he's basically an evil conniving wizard always looking for more power be it through trickery or deceit or murder or sacrifice. I guess once again you have to apply the "in-group out-group" thing to it. As long as he's not killing their human tribe or the aesir then it's okay. Sort of how raiding and killing christians is fine since they're not in the "ingroup"

>While it wasn't the lavish halls of Asgard or Valhalla, it also wasn't particularly there to make somebody follow the dictates of a moral code. It is this distinction that contrasts it so well to Christianity.
I always wondered if the minority of the population who actually went raiding and fighting were the ones who were pushing the valhall meme and were the only hyper religious of the bunch where as the rest who were mostly farmers either didn't believe much in the existance of the afterlife or just saw Hel as a much more nicer place than what the raiders would claim.

Maybe, the description of Valhalla and its contrast to Hel would certainly bring about the glory-seeking fanatics. Since the Einherjar are the ones who occupy Valhalla, it would only make sense that the sort of warrior culture that is brought up around this heaven would most likely be more radical than their farming counterparts. Hel doesn't even sound all that bad, just being a sort of continuation of life but always cold and always more work to do; it would sort of just be like what the farmers' lives were already. The only real downside to Hel was that there was no real way to fight for Law and the gods during Ragnarok. In fact, according to some of the descriptions, someone in Hel might have to fight the Einherjar, Valkyries, Aesir and Vanir which I suspect would be daunting since those are the honored dead warriors, angel warrior women, and the gods, sans a notable few.

>English
>tongue of Angles
>was used in Britain
>home of the Brythonic language family

vikings were seafaring merchants who moonlighted as pirates in response to perceived insults (Christian traders refusing pagans) as an extension to their native honor culture

vikings lost almost every major military engagement they got into

Ive always wanted to run a vikings inspired game. The PCs would be in their village and for whatever reason not allowed to participate in a raid that most of the men have embarked on. After hunting for food for the village they would return to find a rival earls forces storming the village and killing everyone the party holds dear minus a few captives.

Absolutely yes. Don't limit yourself to vikings. The Skandinavian people weren't just psychotic boat barbarians. They built nations, were unparalleled explorers, were the hub for a serious amount of regional trade, and we're far ahead of their time when it came to social order, mainly when it came to their leaders and women.

Examples being you didn't have to be an inbred Noble to claim right to rule and women had an unimaginable amount of freedom, rights, and protection for the time.

In defense of the other side of this argument as a general whole their culture was a violent warrior culture. They lived in a harsh environment which they used to justify stealing everything not nailed to the ground when they raided. they believed sacrificing their own men and women brought about a better harvest. And let's not forget one of their favorite capitol punishments, the blood eagle. If you know it good, if not read up on it.

>home of the Brythonic language family
To bad they are not speaking it anymore today
The original inhabitants of England were either shanked or culturally enriched by those people who were from todays Denmark, northern Germany and the Netherlands.

Well, yes. Proto-English arrives in Britain in the late 400's with invading Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians. By the mid-500's they had established several kingdoms in Britain, ruling over a majority population of Brythonic subjects, which would later coalesce into the Kingdom of England. By the mid 600's, they're basically all Christian. The "Viking era" isn't considered to begin until 793.

English was spoken in Britain well before VIKANGS.

>were the hub for a serious amount of regional trade
There really should be along with the viking berserker stereotype, a merchant viking stereotype, a skilled artisan archetype and an influential court poet stereotype yet they do not exist.

I wish Raider could cancel out of Zone Attack with stampede charge, maybe a bit OP but would be real cool.

No. Vikings are for gays, stormtards and gay stormtards.

Jesus Christ, like whatever the fuck you want. What are you? Insecure 15 year old looking for peer acceptance or something?
Also
>Overused
By whom and where. Did I miss something?

>women had an unimaginable amount of freedom, rights

No wonder they went extinct.

no, vikings are gay and have been soiled for all eternity, liking them in any way is gay, and paganism is ultra gay anyway so why the fuck would you even care about faggot ass snowniggers

...

I've always wanted to run a game with a viking settlement as the focal point.
After a few raids the game would shift from combat to poltical tenson.
Making settlements and economic trade lines and the like.
More or less like the danelaw in midevil england.