Vikings were terrifying

[Pellinore]

Just so you know, those are very TV-ified Vikings. Among other things, Vikings liked colors, didn't wear near that much leather, and definitely liked to keep themselves clean.

I mean, there's nothing wrong with liking the TV Vikings, just don't let yourself think that that's what they really looked like.

 

[rupol2000]

In these North Sea countries there was a matriarchy, men looked like fagots, wore stockings, shoes and wigs. Vikings were hucksters

 

[rupol2000]

I read something on their archeology. Almost nothing has survived from men's clothing, some kind of primitive wooden shields and Roman weapons were found, this is obvious due to the fact that they were hired by the Byzantine infantry and they were supplied with the standard equipment of the lower military units, which they took with them. About their military affairs known nothing.

 

[Pellinore]

A lot of sources, especially on the Internet, like to use the Sagas as sources as if they were historical records, but the problem with that is that the Sagas are mythological stories. There's no way to really know how much was true to the culture (and how widespread those aspects of culture were across the Norse world), and how much was artistic embellishment. It's like trying to interpret medieval culture from a Conan movie.

 

[rupol2000]

A lot of sources, especially on the Internet, like to use the Sagas as sources as if they were historical records, but the problem with that is that the Sagas are mythological stories. There's no way to really know how much was true to the culture (and how widespread those aspects of culture were across the Norse world), and how much was artistic embellishment. It's like trying to interpret medieval culture from a Conan movie.

in addition, the sagas do not belong to the Vikings, they are written in Old Norse
Old Norse is closest to Icelandic. The sagas are also mostly reconstructed from Icelandic sources.

 

[rupol2000]

The runic writing attributed to the Vikings is actually the variant of the Bulgar runes. Most likely it is legacy of Great Hunghaian Сonquests. They still have a runic alphabet.

 

[Zebra]

Good picks. I hated 1984, though.
The Vikings, now ...
They were truly cosmopolitan, traded as far east as Afghanistan, all over Europe, the Middle East. They bathed regularly and cleaned their ears. They found North America way before the Europeans, but they kept it to themselves, because who gives up their best fishing spot?

The Vikngs were Europeans

 

[longly]

Good picks. I hated 1984, though.
The Vikings, now ...
They were truly cosmopolitan, traded as far east as Afghanistan, all over Europe, the Middle East. They bathed regularly and cleaned their ears. They found North America way before the Europeans, but they kept it to themselves, because who gives up their best fishing spot?

Why did you hate 1984? Was it because the Ministry of Love broke Winston in the end, and he learned to love Big Brother and wished only for death? Life was so pointless without the love of Big Brother.

 

[longly]

Why did you hate 1984? Was it because the Ministry of Love broke Winston in the end, and he learned to love Big Brother and wished only for death? Life was so pointless without the love of Big Brother.

I think King Harold got his tactics wrong. He should have left the Vikings who were coming to the end of their power. They had taken English towns for centuries but always got pushed out and never got a foothold. The Vikings needed to take London and the south east to take England and Harold's crown. Even if they had taken the whole of Yorkshire it would have still been neither here nor there. That way Harold would have had more men and a fresh army to take on William at Hastings and would probably have defeated him. The Normans landing at Hastings only a few miles from London was always a far greater threat. Once he had beaten the Normans he could have still afforded to rest for a few days before marching north to take on the Vikings.

After King Harold was killed, the Saxons were defeated, but they still could have won the war. However, William cleverly played faction against faction, and in the meantime, he pacified the country and made it his own. If the Saxons had united, they could have defeated William's army, as they greatly outnumbered the Normans.


Those Saxon lords who switched sides and joined William either lost their lands or saw their descendants lose them to the Normans. As Norman families grew in England and needed more land, they took it from the Saxons. By the end, there was no Saxon nobility left.


Another interesting point is that one of William's largest contingents consisted of Bretons from Brittany, who sought revenge for what the Saxons had done to their ancestors 500 years earlier. ( That is my opinion, not widely accepted by historians). However, they did not get their revenge or the promised lands; instead, they were left disappointed.

 

[Zebra]

They were also slave and sex slave traders. Some even say they were the Philistines.

they were cowards who killed and robbed un.armed people

 

[whitehall]

The Viking myth may well have been exaggerated by British novelists. It's more likely that Vikings were coward terrorist gangs who preyed on weak British religious outposts for precious relics and avoided confronting real resistance. .

 

[longly]

they were cowards who killed and robbed un.armed people

I think you missed the point. The Vikings were not a noble class of knights who fought for honor. They were farmers and fishermen from a primitive culture whose crops had failed and who couldn’t find fish. Their families were starving in Scandinavia. So, they weren’t interested in honor—they were interested in taking food back to their families.

 

[Mushroom]

they were cowards who killed and robbed un.armed people

Do you really think the Saxons in France and England were "unarmed"?

Yes, some of the places targeted were monasteries, but certainly not all of them were. And many also had their own militant orders.

In fact, a great many scholars consider them almost as a "religious war" by Pagans against the rapidly expanding Christian influence in Europe.

They were farmers and fishermen from a primitive culture whose crops had failed and who couldn’t find fish.

For many it was also something to do in the winter. Or by younger sons that had no chance to inherit, so went in search of money and glory, not unlike the Crusaders in the same era.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Those are Germans, not Vikings.

 

[Rambunctious]

Those are Germans, not Vikings.

I know that...

 

[Zebra]

I think you missed the point. The Vikings were not a noble class of knights who fought for honor. They were farmers and fishermen from a primitive culture whose crops had failed and who couldn’t find fish. Their families were starving in Scandinavia. So, they weren’t interested in honor—they were interested in taking food back to their families.

they were not after food, but after gold and slaves.
they were mean criminals

 

[Deadstick]

Where i live in England there was a heavy presence of Vikings, to walk round my town you can find many place names connected to the Vikings,they were interesting people, farmers etc, they must have been hard men they sailed the Globe in those Long Ships and left their mark.

 

[Zebra]

The Viking myth may well have been exaggerated by British novelists. It's more likely that Vikings were coward terrorist gangs who preyed on weak British religious outposts for precious relics and avoided confronting real resistance. .

exactly!

 

[there4eyeM]

As with most cultures, the violence of this group was the result of unrestrained young men who discovered that their ability to kill and overpower could satisfy their lusts. They became a death cult, just as with all military organizations.

 

[Zebra]

As with most cultures, the violence of this group was the result of unrestrained young men who discovered that their ability to kill and overpower could satisfy their lusts. They became a death cult, just as with all military organizations.

nothing there to admire