The Brutality of Vikings

[Wu Wei]

I addressed only those who expressed
Viking heritage pride.

While sitting in Beijing and speaking as one with a bit of Viking heritage and a lot of Germanic with some Irish, Scottish and English

Pick society, group, or empire of the time and tell me which one that didn’t have slaves or didn’t commit acts if cruelty

 

[Balthazzar]

I'm sorry to hear that your confused.

But if you're happy I'm not gonna make you see things any other way.

I'm sorry, but your sorry sounded more patronizing than sincere. Confusion? No, it's not confusion. It's disappointment, frustration, foresight, and fear.

 

[Balthazzar]

 

[Balthazzar]

I'm sorry to hear that your confused.

But if you're happy I'm not gonna make you see things any other way.

God = Universe (my usage)
Christian = Truthful spirit (my usage)
Hell = Grave (My usage)
Eternal = period of time (my usage)
Eternal life = period of time/lifetime (my usage)

No one listens nor seems to care much about the open bridge that is communication anymore. This is a fearful thing to me understanding the consequence of indifference coupled with aim to dismantle.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

While sitting in Beijing and speaking as one with a bit of Viking heritage and a lot of Germanic with some Irish, Scottish and English

Pick society, group, or empire of the time and tell me which one that didn’t have slaves or didn’t commit acts if cruelty

Slavery is against some cultures’ religions.

Acts of cruelty are quite another thing.

The great black military leaders even made pacts with the devil, in exchange for various gifts or powers.

It’s a Catholic thang.

 

[Wu Wei]

Slavery is against some cultures’ religions.

Acts of cruelty are quite another thing.

The great black military leaders even made pacts with the devil, in exchange for various gifts or powers.

It’s a Catholic thang.

From 790 to 1109?

 

[Balthazzar]

Vikings were basically just raiding parties. They made people miserable and very dead. It's alright to enjoy fictional stuff. As long as you remember the actual historical vikings were as scummy and cruel as the rest of ye olde humanity.

As if ye new are any less cruel than thy olde. Imagine the wake of ye new as ye olde slowly fade into the abyss understanding how ye new conduct thine own future well being and thine own descendants futures who will be born into the wake left by thy news efforts. Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Palestine, North Korea, China, Yugoslavia, Iran, Bosnia, Yemen, Afghanistan, the list goes' on and on ...

No guns left? No will in man to stand? No democracy? Fictional is only fiction when it's fantasy. As cruel as they may have been, and no matter how scummy you may view them to have been, the element of truth and reality is present in their history, just as it is present in every other culture history. Would you prefer a three piece suit, bow tie, and perfume to go with the vegan meal prepared by your caretakers? Why am I not so optimistic about the future as our youth seem to be, or is it that they have less hope than I do? It's alright to enjoy fictional stuff. Agreed.

As long as you remember ... and never forget the real in the stories being told also.

Sorry for the rant. Truly.

 

[The Hammer]

I'm sorry, but your sorry sounded more patronizing than sincere. Confusion? No, it's not confusion. It's disappointment, frustration, foresight, and fear.

Wasn't meant to be. But I've been called blunt and emotionally insensitive before so I can see my word choice isn't always the best.

What I was getting at, trying to anyways, is that you have a different perspective than I do. And I'm not one to try and change that. You enjoy your view, and said it made you happy. That's good.

My views in turn benefit me.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

From 790 to 1109?

From the early 1500s.

The early years are shrouded in mystery. But they made a big splash back in the 1720s when they reached out to the Holy Catholic Church to secure a priest to perform baptisms.

The paper really started flying.

The House of Bourbon had to invent this weird political notion of something called the “separation of powers”, just to keep their heads from exploding, since the state, although unable to exterminate them, viewed their existence as illegal.

They were allied with the Holy Catholic Church in their wars with the colonial state.

The right to Welcome the Stranger was a mayor early issue with the colonial state, and the reason for the alliance with the Holy Catholic Church.

In fact, Welcoming the Stranger is the very foundation of Catholicism.

 

[Wu Wei]

From the early 1500s.

The early years are shrouded in mystery. But they made a big splash back in the 1720s when they reached out to the Holy Catholic Church to secure a priest to perform baptisms.

The paper really started flying.

The House of Bourbon had to invent this weird political notion of something called the “separation of powers”, just to keep their heads from exploding, since the state, although unable to exterminate them, viewed their existence as illegal.

They were allied with the Holy Catholic Church in their wars with the colonial state.

The right to Welcome the Stranger was a mayor early issue with the colonial state, and the reason for the alliance with the Holy Catholic Church.

In fact, Welcoming the Stranger is the very foundation of Catholicism.

Yeah, thats nice, but i am specifically talking about the Viking era, 790 to 1100. Anything outside of that, as far as my post goes, is not applicable

 

[Sargonski]

I addressed only those who expressed
Viking heritage pride.

Aye .. and they should take great pride in such Heritage ... a people who accomplished many things ... Would be pure unadulterated Ethnocentric nonsense to let partaking in a custom universal at that time get in the way of such pride... ..

Thats right Revol --- new word alert .. from the field of Anthropology .. the study of Anthropo .. "Ethnocentrism"

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Yeah, thats nice, but i am specifically talking about the Viking era, 790 to 1100. Anything outside of that, as far as my post goes, is not applicable

The OP didn’t have a time limit.

The 20th century and 21st century are pretty bad as well.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I prefer the phrasing "Pirate Vikings" because everyone suggests it was an occupation. In good humor. I could call a viking a viking but if piracy was a profession, then why not call them pirates instead of vikings or better yet Pirate vikings?

Language is funny like that. Though I suspect the reason may be Wagner popularizing a very romanticized and innacurate vision of the vikings in his operas. It's also where the idea of horned helmets comes from.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't criticize anyone for having any particular
ancestry. I only urge thoughtful consideration
of celebrating ones with evil traits.

You didn't get that it was a joke?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

“Pirates are revered as the original Pastafarians.”

Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Quagmire]

I would guess that the perceived brutality of Viking culture comes more from the way they went about things then the things they actually did.

They attacked randomly and without provocation against people who weren't their enemy. In their case raiding and pillaging wasn't a byproduct of war, they were engaged in for their own sake.

While the victims themselves probably wouldn't have cared much whether or not there had been a formal declaration of war made by or against the people burning their villages, the fact that Vikings tended to skip that particular formality makes them seem more barbaric from a civilized perspective.

Also they tended to go out of their way to present themselves as savages to the people they went up against ---- war paint, animal skins/bones/claws, tattoos, etc. which would have played into the barbarian mystique.

All in all though they probably weren't any more brutal than any other culture, and definitely less so then some of the religious institutions of their time.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I prefer the phrasing "Pirate Vikings" because everyone suggests it was an occupation. In good humor. I could call a viking a viking but if piracy was a profession, then why not call them pirates instead of vikings or better yet Pirate vikings? Why the distinction between territories? What makes vikings so special that they get the special differential?

It doesn't matter, or does it? The point is many cultures were very brutal, but vikings seemed less brutal than others yet they get that "special treatment? It's a mystery to me.

Viking could best be equated to Raiders moreso than Pirates. It wasn't a profession so much as an action.
Norsemen (Northmen) went a'viking (raiding). They then returned home and farmed, etc.

A couple of caveats here...
1) the term wasn't much used to describe them in their own time, apart from descriptions of ships gathering in a Vik (bay). That's a much more recent phenomenon, attributable to 18th century Scandinavian poetry, initially, and popular culture from there.
2) the descriptors of them used...and how they acted and appeared...varies quite greatly between the west, and the east. Just as 'Viking culture' impacted on the targets of their raids and eventual settlements, so too did those targets impact on them.
3) despite the common view of Vikings as pagan raiders unleashed on a Christian west, the Vikings were aware of foreign lands, and had dealings with them already. Asatru was also in decline much earlier in this period than many assume, with Christianity ascendent.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They attacked randomly and without provocation against people who weren't their enemy. In their case raiding and pillaging wasn't a byproduct of war, they were engaged in for their own sake.

That's basically everyone back then. English, Welsh, Frank, Norse, Irish, Firisian, Jute, Goth, Gaul, Roman, Saxon, Norman, everyone did that.
Except the random part. Attacks were rarely random and usually picked for reason such as low risk cattle raids to defenseless monasteries filled with precious gems and metals. Low risk-high reward was how many attacks were planned. Attacks were actually picked and planned enough that Alfred the Great and his children stuffed the Saxon kingdoms full of burghs where they could to defend against and especially deter viking raiders who were very reluctant and hesitant to lose that many men attacking something that fortified when they could find a smaller village to raid.

 

[The Hammer]

That's basically everyone back then. English, Welsh, Frank, Norse, Irish, Firisian, Jute, Goth, Gaul, Roman, Saxon, Norman, everyone did that.
Except the random part. Attacks were rarely random and usually picked for reason such as low risk cattle raids to defenseless monasteries filled with precious gems and metals. Low risk-high reward was how many attacks were planned. Attacks were actually picked and planned enough that Alfred the Great and his children stuffed the Saxon kingdoms full of burghs where they could to defend against and especially deter viking raiders who were very reluctant and hesitant to lose that many men attacking something that fortified when they could find a smaller village to raid.

Yup. Attacks of opportunity. They wanted to be in and out.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Great shipbuilders and seafarers. Without their contribution to maritime technology and culture, the European empires which colonised the Americas might never have left home; which would have been to the obvious benefit of the natives abroad, one might argue.