Vikings are awesome

[DieselDaisy]

When the Vikings adopted Christianity they did not simply cease being Vikings. Normandy became to epitomise European feudal society and chivalry and became a medieval superpower, in turn conquering England under William the Bastard. 

[DieselDaisy]

9 minutes ago, Dazey said:

As an aside, has anybody else noticed that Norway/Sweden/Denmark etc looks like a massive cock and balls?

Has that cock had Norway sliced off because they are not in the EU?

[Ace Nova]

8 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't consider the Colonists to have been more cruel then any other people of that time. They are painted to be more vile in liberal sources but that's propaganda. So within the context of living in a highly cruel period of time where lives didn't matter much, they stood out as really awesome.

Same could be said about colonists, no?

(That's not necessarily my belief, just pointing that out)

[SoulMonster]

3 hours ago, Dazey said:

As an aside, has anybody else noticed that Norway/Sweden/Denmark etc looks like a massive cock and balls?

Sweden is the bollocks.

[SoulMonster]

51 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Same could be said about colonists, no?

(That's not necessarily my belief, just pointing that out)

I still consider the 15th century more enlightened than the 9th and the Vikings never attempted genocide, so I won't equate these things. But the principle holds: it is hard to judge people living in those times with today's moral values.

[Ace Nova]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

 But the principle holds: it is hard to judge people living in those times with today's moral values.

That I completely agree with.

But in terms of the Vikings never attempting "genocide"....what do you mean?  They didn't commit genocide?  They didn't "mean to commit genocide"?

[SoulMonster]

35 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

That I completely agree with.

But in terms of the Vikings never attempting "genocide"....what do you mean?  They didn't commit genocide?  They didn't "mean to commit genocide"?

There is nothing that suggests they ever wanted to kill off an entire people. Their motivation was plunder and trade. Killing off a people would make trade impossible. There are also no examples of abject racism that could have led to attempts on genocide, nor did they have the manpower or resources to accomplish such a feat. The only really large invasion the Vikings ever did, rather than just plunder along coasts and rivers, was the big attack on the English Kingdoms in the 850s, and even if the Viking armies of Danes and Northmen almost captured all of what is today England, they never attempted to kill off the Anglo-Saxons living there. Also keep in mind that the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons were closely related with similar languages and culture -- making it more unlikely they would ever want to do such a horrible thing.

The most distant people the Vikings ever met must have been the proto-Inuits in today's Canada, but again there are no suggestions the Norse ever considered killing them off. They needed them alive and prospering for trade, and besides they never had the manpower to even make that feasible, if they ever wanted.

I am not saying that they were better than other peoples of the time, I doubt they would have felt much remorse if they knew they had killed of an entire tribe, and there are enough examples of genocide and attempts at that around the same time and before (both Charlemagne and Romans did horrible tings to German tribes), but again, they didn't have the motivation.

This is in contrast to the 15th and 16th century colonists of the Americas who considered the "Indians" ungodly savages with little value and had the firepower and technological advantages to kill them off (especially since the native Americans had plummeted in numbers due to repeated disease outbreaks).

But again, not saying the Vikings were nice people (after today's standard), just that they were probably pretty average for their times, and that the only reason they have gone down in history as particularly gruesome is due to the fact that they had the fantastic opportunity to raid quite unprotected areas, and that their victims were those that ended up writing history and had all reasons to vilify them.

[Ace Nova]

55 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

There is nothing that suggests they ever wanted to kill off an entire people. Their motivation was plunder and trade. Killing off a people would make trade impossible. There are also no examples of abject racism that could have led to attempts on genocide, nor did they have the manpower or resources to accomplish such a feat. The only really large invasion the Vikings ever did, rather than just plunder along coasts and rivers, was the big attack on the English Kingdoms in the 850s, and even if the Viking armies of Danes and Northmen almost captured all of what is today England, they never attempted to kill off the Anglo-Saxons living there. Also keep in mind that the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons were closely related with similar languages and culture -- making it more unlikely they would ever want to do such a horrible thing.

The most distant people the Vikings ever met must have been the proto-Inuits in today's Canada, but again there are no suggestions the Norse ever considered killing them off. They needed them alive and prospering for trade, and besides they never had the manpower to even make that feasible, if they ever wanted.

I am not saying that they were better than other peoples of the time, I doubt they would have felt much remorse if they knew they had killed of an entire tribe, and there are enough examples of genocide and attempts at that around the same time and before (both Charlemagne and Romans did horrible tings to German tribes), but again, they didn't have the motivation.

This is in contrast to the 15th and 16th century colonists of the Americas who considered the "Indians" ungodly savages with little value and had the firepower and technological advantages to kill them off (especially since the native Americans had plummeted in numbers due to repeated disease outbreaks).

But again, not saying the Vikings were nice people (after today's standard), just that they were probably pretty average for their times, and that the only reason they have gone down in history as particularly gruesome is due to the fact that they had the fantastic opportunity to raid quite unprotected areas, and that their victims were those that ended up writing history and had all reasons to vilify them.

There's evidence that the Romans killed off entire opposing armies, even after surrender because they did not want to take them prisoner and risk another "Spartacus" type revolt within the empire.  Did the Vikings not do the same?  I'd say if so, that could be considered genocide, no?

 

 

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

firepower and technological advantages

Overrated.

I debunked this in the us politics thread I believe, somewhere I rarely venture.

European small arms, the matchlock and flintlock musket for instance, were remarkably slow, inaccurate and expensive to produce until the prevalence of rifling in the 18th century. They were dangerous (to their user) also. The stirrup and horse had a much larger impact on colonial American warfare. Diseases had a bigger impact again. 

[Graeme]

On 11/01/2018 at 6:41 PM, SoulMonster said:

Okay, that attempt at humor means we are putting Scotland on top of our hit list for our Second Coming. Expect longships with motors, harnessed polar bears and Rape & Pillage 2.0 technology. 

Battle of Largs round two. We'll rout you like we did last time .

[SoulMonster]

12 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

There's evidence that the Romans killed off entire opposing armies, even after surrender because they did not want to take them prisoner and risk another "Spartacus" type revolt within the empire.  Did the Vikings not do the same?  I'd say if so, that could be considered genocide, no?

No, I would not consider to wipe out an army 'genocide'. I understand 'genocide' to wipe out a people, that is men, women and children. The purpose is to eradicate a tribe/people/race.

Romans DID commit genocide, or at least attempt that. And although the Vikings may have succeeded at wiping out entire armies they met (although they rarely met any armies with more than thousands warriors), there is, as far as I know, no records of them ever attempting to kill off a people. It wouldn't make sense to them and wouldn't be logistically possible - nor did they exhibit the same type of racial superiority that was so ubiquitous with the Romans.

11 hours ago, Graeme said:

Battle of Largs round two. We'll rout you like we did last time .

This time we'll come riding on polar bears.

[SoulMonster]

12 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Overrated.

I debunked this in the us politics thread I believe, somewhere I rarely venture.

European small arms, the matchlock and flintlock musket for instance, were remarkably slow, inaccurate and expensive to produce until the prevalence of rifling in the 18th century. They were dangerous (to their user) also. The stirrup and horse had a much larger impact on colonial American warfare. Diseases had a bigger impact again. 

With "technological advantage" I actually thought of horses and riding, which was instrumental in overcoming Mayan resistance. Iron weapons also gave the conquistadores a great advantage over the native tribes. I can't bother to go down to the library, but here's a quote off the glorious Internet:

Quote

Spanish weaponry was far superior to anything used by the Aztecs or Incas. Cortés and his men used over a dozen large portable guns, mainly for their shock value against the Aztecs. Pizarro's conquest of the Incas was also made possible by the use of gunpowder, a substance the Incas didn't have at their disposal. Even less sophisticated weapons like steel-edged swords, pikes and crossbows, gave Spaniards the upper hand.

And we agree on the impact of diseases.

Edited January 13, 2018 by SoulMonster

[soon]

On January 12, 2018 at 2:38 AM, SoulMonster said:

In terms of getting to Valhalla, I believe any fighting free man could get there if they should enough fighting prowess and died in battle. There were very few professional warriors back in the early Viking era (750-850), later on (850-1100) a professional class of warriors had been formed due to extensive warfare, especially round kings and other royal persons who needed an army and retinue. In the latter period the viking raids had also grown in size and intent (with a constant presence in parts of the British Isles and elsewhere), and allowed full-time warriors to exist. But most people were still farmers and fishermen, yet all had weapon's training to defend their farmstead and to fight in wars against other kingsdoms and to go on foreign raids ("to go viking") when needed, and could potentially reach Valhalla if they did well. 

It wasn't exactly equality of the sexes, there were strict gender roles, but it seems like both women and men were cherished for their parts. As christendom came, in some ways it meant women lost some freedom and status.

Interesting stuff.  Thanks for filling me in!

[Ace Nova]

8 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

With "technological advantage" I actually thought of horses and riding, which was instrumental in overcoming Mayan resistance. Iron weapons also gave the conquistadores a great advantage over the native tribes. I can't bother to go down to the library, but here's a quote off the glorious Internet:

And we agree on the impact of diseases.

I don't know enough about Viking history to dispute what you're claiming that they never "technically" committed genocide.  So I'll defer to @DieselDaisy

 

 

They did rape, murder, pillage and capture people and enslave them.  Which is just as bad as genocide, anyway.

 

This article debunks your theory about it being just "propaganda" that the Vikings were savage, ruthless and barbaric against the people they conquered.  It is liberal revisionist history, just as I assumed. The same type of liberal revisionist history that tries to depict all of the Colonists as ruthless and genocidal.  Total nonsense.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/08/sorry-the-vikings-really-were-that-bad/

 

Sorry – the Vikings really were that bad

Forget that guff about peaceful farmers with an interest in travel

Melanie McDonagh

 

Sometimes the really obvious take on history turns out to be the right one. For generations, we all assumed that the atrocities perpetrated by the Germans in Belgium at the outset of the first world war and enthusiastically reported in the British press were Allied propaganda. Yet recent research suggests that quite a lot of it was true.

Well, the same goes for the Vikings. For almost half a century, the academic line on Vikings has been that our old idea of them as raping, pillaging bastards who’d sack a monastery as soon as look at it was a childishly transparent bit of propaganda, perpetuated by Christian monks who were obviously biased against the pagan Northmen. As a recent Cambridge conference put it, ‘Vikings shared technology, swapped ideas and often lived side-by-side in relative harmony with their Anglo-Saxon and Celtic contemporaries.’ So much for the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

An admiring editorial in the Guardian duly observed of the Vikings that ‘Men wore stylish baggy trousers and jewellery, as well as spending a lot of time on their hair. And according to Hillary Clinton, no less, Viking society gave women considerable freedom to trade and participate in political and religious life. Before long, the Vikings lived side by side with the people they invaded, leaving many of us with our own inner Viking. There’s a lesson there.’

Well, an impressive new exhibition that’s coming to the British Museum next year, Viking, now in Copenhagen, presents a different take on the Vikings than the revisionist notion of them as proto-feminists and early multiculturalists. They were, as we first thought, violent bastards. In contrast to recent exhibitions which have focused on their (perfectly real) record as city founders, brilliant seafarers and traders with an interest in good governance, the exhibits return us to the traditional image of pillagers, raiders and aggressive colonisers: the artefacts are hard to square with them as peaceful farmers with an interest in travel.

The longboat on display is a weapon of war, and the alarming swords, spears, battleaxes and lozenge-shaped arrows tell their own story. As do the iron slave-collars from Dublin. One observer suggested that the Lewis chessmen in the exhibition biting on their shields recall their reputation for bloodlust.

Because, you know, even in a violent age — and monastic chroniclers were perfectly used to violence — the Vikings’ cruelty and joy in battle put them in a class of their own.

 

Of course the revisionists have a point that there is more to them than this; but what you might call the hinterland of the Vikings has been familiar for over a century; the entry in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, takes supposedly modern assumptions about their assimilating tendencies as a given and observes that the sources are largely one-sided. What’s more interesting are the reasons for the contemporary need to view the Vikings in a light completely other than the terror of the West.

The flip answer would be that liberals, including scholars, are so captivated by modern Scandinavians, from the women detectives right through to the welfare, that it seems like an error of taste to bring up dirt from the ninth century. A more serious approach is suggested by Professor Stefan Brink in his introduction to The Viking World, a compilation of the best contemporary scholarship on the period: ‘Every era uses history for its own purposes; every time shapes its own history. And especially during periods of strong political hegemony… it has been common to… sanction the politics you pursue. The focus on the warrior Viking in Nazi Germany is an obvious example. In post-war Europe, battered and tired of war, it was more welcome and natural to focus on the peaceful side of the Vikings, as traders.’

One scholar who has made it his business to cut through revisionist cant is David Dumville, professor of history and palaeography at the University of Aberdeen. He puts the fashion for cuddly Vikings squarely down to ‘Swedish war guilt about not participating in the war and American political correctness’. Half a century ago, he says, no one would have said all this; the fashion started with a 1962 book by Peter Sawyer, The Age of the Vikings. But the problem is that the Vikings-as-peaceful-traders approach has now been academic orthodoxy for two generations and its proponents are still getting grants as cutting-edge revisionists. ‘We’re being invited to forget vast amounts of things rather than investigate radically serious new options,’ he says.

For a saner approach, he suggests ‘the simple thing is to go back to the chronicles which were on the whole contemporary records and see the extraordinary similarity between what was happening in different contexts and continents. I don’t think there’s any way round what the contemporary sources are saying.’ Admittedly, later accounts were downright lurid. ‘Babies on spearpoints were later propaganda from the 13th century,’ he says. ‘Overwhelmingly the most colourful accounts came from that point. But among contemporaries, no one was in any doubt that Vikings were bad news.’

The exhibition at the British Museum may be a good first step in what you might call the de-rehabilitation of the Vikings, without losing sight of the insights of the revisionists, chief of which is that they absolutely did not wear horned helmets. It is, after all, only doing justice to the simple facts of history if we return to the version of history immortalised in the old Guinness ad: Looting and pillaging was thirsty work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Kasanova King said:

I don't know enough about Viking history to dispute what you're claiming that they never "technically" committed genocide.  So I'll defer to @DieselDaisy

They did rape, murder, pillage and capture people and enslave them.  Which is just as bad as genocide, anyway.

This article debunks your theory about it being just "propaganda" that the Vikings were savage, ruthless and barbaric against the people they conquered.  

Has @DieselDaisyclaimed they committed genocide?

I have never claimed the Vikings weren't savage, ruthless and barbaric . I have claimed that they weren't worse than other people at their time (only that they were in the fortunate situation where their longships allowed them easy access to vulnerable targets -- who would later dictate history), and that they never committed any genocides (and probably never wanted, either).

And no, rape, murder, pillage and slavery isn't as bad as genocide, as you claim. Genocide is all that with the extra result of killing off an entire race/tribe/people. It is murder at a large scale with an evil intent.

Now try to keep up.

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Has @DieselDaisyclaimed they committed genocide?

I have never claimed the Vikings weren't savage, ruthless and barbaric . I have claimed that they weren't worse than other people at their time (only that they were in the fortunate situation where their longships allowed them easy access to vulnerable targets -- who would later dictate history), and that they never committed any genocides (and probably never wanted, either).

And no, rape, murder, pillage and slavery isn't as bad as genocide, as you claim. Genocide is all that with the extra result of killing off an entire race/tribe/people. It is murder at a large scale with an evil intent.

Now try to keep up.

Smh.  You claimed that it was mostly "propaganda".  Do you want me to find your quote?  The article also states that they were indeed worse than most people of their time.  

Try to keep up.

 

[SoulMonster]

The historians' view on the Vikings has swung back and forth. At the start (up to 1960-1970) they were mostly remembered for their raids, which was easily to research through the writing of christian contemporaries who in detail condemned the evil pagans from the North. These sources would paint a biased picture. Then, as historians started to write about more obscure literary sources and more knowledge about trade came from archaeological excavations, the pendulum swung more in the direction of primary describing the Vikings as traders and colonists (1980-1990). Today, the consensus is to acknowledge both sides of their activities. It is beyond doubt that the Vikings raided and attacked easy targets along European coasts, but it is also beyond doubt that they explored and colonized new regions as well as worked as traders who bond Europe together. The emphasis an author will make depends much upon preferences and interests (I have books entirely about Viking warfare but also books almost entirely writing about their technology, culture, and trade), but all new books with the intent of presenting a comprehensive description of Vikings will have chapters on both .

Personally, in case people wonder, I prefer to refer to the people as Norse (or Northmen) and only as Vikings when they were involved in military activities. This is also inline with their own expression, where "to go viking" was usually meant to describe forays from Norway with the intent of plunder. 

[DieselDaisy]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Has @DieselDaisyclaimed they committed genocide?

I have never claimed the Vikings weren't savage, ruthless and barbaric . I have claimed that they weren't worse than other people at their time (only that they were in the fortunate situation where their longships allowed them easy access to vulnerable targets -- who would later dictate history), and that they never committed any genocides (and probably never wanted, either).

And no, rape, murder, pillage and slavery isn't as bad as genocide, as you claim. Genocide is all that with the extra result of killing off an entire race/tribe/people. It is murder at a large scale with an evil intent.

Now try to keep up.

The obvious comparison would be with the Western Christendom they attacked.

- warfare consisted of set-piece battles between kings, nobles and their retainers and tended to avoid civilians. The exceptions to this are discussed in historic sources as just that: exceptions. Vikings purposely sought out civilian targets.

- the medieval brutality of Christian Europe was tempered by European chivalry, knightly courtiership and cultural refinement and Christian morality. The Vikings possessed no such restraints. 

- No slavery but serfdom, a form of economic bondage (and this was eroding in England and France). The Vikings blatantly took slaves for sexual exploitation. 

Still I mostly agree with you with one or two reservations. Perhaps the best way to put it would be to say the Vikings were the most brutal in a brutal age. 

[SoulMonster]

8 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Smh.  You claimed that it was mostly "propaganda".  Do you want me to find your quote?  The article also states that they were indeed worse than most people of their time.  

Try to keep up.

You are not playing with a complete deck of cards here. I referred to Ancuin's letter as propaganda, right, where he described the Vikings as barbarians from the North that was sent from god as punishment on his monk brothers back in Northumbria who had erred from their ways. Alcuin, who at the time served Charlemagne in his court in Aachen heard about the attack in Northumbria and was shocked. His resulting letters sent to Lindisfarne and other courts in Anglo-Saxony, are generally considered to be propaganda and must be interpreted as in the context of Alcuin criticizing his christian brothers back home from not being devout enough or praying enough.

I don't agree with the Spectator journalist (who is not a historian, btw) who claim that they were more violent or barbaric than other people at the time. That is pure conjecture. They certainly did a lot of bad, but again, this is due to them having the possibility to do so, and doesn't implicate a more murderous mind, and the bad they did has been endlessly exaggerated through christian sources who had all to win for painting them as bad as they could. I realize that you will never believe me over the journalist, so I suggest you do as I have, read contemporary books on the subject.

[Ace Nova]

11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

The historians' view on the Vikings has swung back and forth. At the start (up to 1960-1970) they were mostly remembered for their raids, which was easily to research through the writing of christian contemporaries who in detail condemned the evil pagans from the North. These sources would paint a biased picture. Then, as historians started to write about more obscure literary sources and more knowledge about trade came from archaeological excavations, the pendulum swung more in the direction of primary describing the Vikings as traders and colonists (1980-1990). Today, the consensus is to acknowledge both sides of their activities. It is beyond doubt that the Vikings raided and attacked easy targets along European coasts, but it is also beyond doubt that they explored and colonized new regions as well as worked as traders who bond Europe together. The emphasis an author will make depends much upon preferences and interests (I have books entirely about Viking warfare but also books almost entirely writing about their technology, culture, and trade), but all new books with the intent of presenting a comprehensive description of Vikings will have chapters on both .

Personally, in case people wonder, I prefer to refer to the people as Norse (or Northmen) and only as Vikings when they were involved in military activities. This is also inline with their own expression, where "to go viking" was usually meant to describe forays from Norway with the intent of plunder. 

I can get on board with most of this.  I also think, as the article states, that history can become "revisionist" depending on the political climate of the times.  Right now "Vikings" are "in style" and Colonists are "out of style". That's all. 

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

You are not playing with a complete deck of cards here. I referred to Ancuin's letter as propaganda, right, where he described the Vikings as barbarians from the North that was sent from god as punishment on his monk brothers back in Northumbria who had erred from their ways. Alcuin, who at the time served Charlemagne in his court in Aachen heard about the attack in Northumbria and was shocked. His resulting letters sent to Lindisfarne and other courts in Anglo-Saxony, are generally considered to be propaganda and must be interpreted as in the context of Alcuin criticizing his christian brothers back home from not being devout enough or praying enough.

I don't agree with the Spectator journalist (who is not a historian, btw) who claim that they were more violent or barbaric than other people at the time. That is pure conjecture. They certainly did a lot of bad, but again, this is due to them having the possibility to do so, and doesn't implicate a more murderous mind, and the bad they did has been endlessly exaggerated through christian sources who had all to win for painting them as bad as they could. I realize that you will never believe me over the journalist, so I suggest you do as I have, read contemporary books on the subject.

So you are justifying their "barbarity" because it was possible for them to do so? Couldn't the same "justification" be said for almost any other reigns of terror throughout history?  

And from what I've read, they did have "murderous minds" and enjoyed it too. 

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

So you are justifying their "barbarity" because it was possible for them to do so? Couldn't the same "justification" be said for almost any other reigns of terror throughout history?  

And from what I've read, they did have "murderous minds" and enjoyed it too. 

I have not justified anything. I have just explained how they ended up being the "scourge of christanity".

Whether it was Anglo-Saxons killing Danes, Northmen killing Anglo-Saxons, Francs killing Saxons, Saxons killing Lombards -- I am sure warriors felt about the same way about it. Warriors are warriors. And this was a HIGHLY violent time where lives mattered little. There are nothing in our written history that suggests the Vikings were more barbaric and showed less leniency than others or felt better about killing then their contemporaries. I have read quit a bit about this time in history and can't remember any examples of horrible atrocities committed by the Vikings that stood out as abnormal for the time, it was the normal rape and pillage and collateral damage you would expect as par for the course. I remember other people doing worse things, though, like Charlemagne and the Massacre at Verden where he beheaded 4500 Saxons who had asked for peace in retribution for their rebellion (and also destroyed a sacred tree of theirs). I am sure the Vikings also killed off people caught in battle, but nowhere anything at this scale. 

[Ace Nova]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

I have not justified anything. I have just explained how they ended up being the "scourge of christanity".

Whether it was Anglo-Saxons killing Danes, Northmen killing Anglo-Saxons, Francs killing Saxons, Saxons killing Lombards -- I am sure warriors felt about the same way about it. Warriors are warriors. And this was a HIGHLY violent time where lives mattered little. There are nothing in our written history that suggests the Vikings were more barbaric and showed less leniency than others or felt better about killing then their contemporaries. I have read quit a bit about this time in history and can't remember any examples of horrible atrocities committed by the Vikings that stood out as abnormal for the time, it was the normal rape and pillage and collateral damage you would expect as par for the course. I remember other people doing worse things, though, like Charlemagne and the Massacre at Verden where he beheaded 4500 Saxons who had asked for peace in retribution for their rebellion (and also destroyed a sacred tree of theirs). I am sure the Vikings also killed off people caught in battle, but nowhere anything at this scale. 

Seems as if @DieselDaisy posted some convincing evidence that shows that their brutality was indeed much worse than other people from the times.  Care to respond to his post?

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Kasanova King said:

Seems as if @DieselDaisy posted some convincing evidence that shows that their brutality was indeed much worse than other people from the times.  Care to respond to his post?

I don't think you know what evidence is. An argument, no matter how compelling you might find it, is not evidence. And you find it compelling, and let's be honest, not because you have any idea but just because it supports your misconceptions.

@DieselDaisy seems to compare Viking raids with formalized wars during the later Medieval times. That is not a fair comparison. It is better to compare Vikings warfare with how other contemporary peoples fought, and if you compare to Anglo-Saxons, the Ummayad, various German tribes, Lombards, Francs, Avars, etc, there really isn't much in the way of written sources that suggest that the Vikings were any worse in respect to targeting civilians, taking slaves (the transition to serfdom happened first around 1000 AD in Europe), or acting courteous in warfare (the concept of chivalry came about around 1200 AD). He basically seems to be a few hundred years off.

The 4-500 hundred years after the collapse of the western Roman Empire (500-1000 AD) -- termed the Early Middle Ages, and spaning the Viking Age (750 - 1000 AD) -- was marked as a very violent time with great upheavals in Europe and attacks on civilians and slavery was commonplace. Notable mentions are the Ummayad conquest of Hispania (around 750) and the bloodshed when the Berbers rebelled; King Æthelred ordering all Danes (also cilvilians) in England to be slaughtered (around 1000 AD); and muslims killing all jews in Granada (around 1000 AD). I know of no examples where Vikings wanted to wipe out entire populations. Yes, they killed in battle and took civilians slaves. But that was, as I have said before, par for the course in this time.

[Ace Nova]

5 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't think you know what evidence is. An argument, no matter how compelling you might find it, is not evidence. And you find it compelling, and let's be honest, not because you have any idea but just because it supports your misconceptions.

@DieselDaisy seems to compare Viking raids with formalized wars during the later Medieval times. That is not a fair comparison. It is better to compare Vikings warfare with how other contemporary peoples fought, and if you compare to Anglo-Saxons, the Ummayad, various German tribes, Lombards, Francs, Avars, etc, there really isn't much in the way of written sources that suggest that the Vikings were any worse in respect to targeting civilians, taking slaves (the transition to serfdom happened first around 1000 AD in Europe), or acting courteous in warfare (the concept of chivalry came about around 1200 AD). He basically seems to be a few hundred years off.

The 4-500 hundred years after the collapse of the western Roman Empire (500-1000 AD) -- termed the Early Middle Ages, and spaning the Viking Age (750 - 1000 AD) -- was marked as a very violent time with great upheavals in Europe and attacks on civilians and slavery was commonplace. Notable mentions are the Ummayad conquest of Hispania (around 750) and the bloodshed when the Berbers rebelled; King Æthelred ordering all Danes (also cilvilians) in England to be slaughtered (around 1000 AD); and muslims killing all jews in Granada (around 1000 AD). I know of no examples where Vikings wanted to wipe out entire populations. Yes, they killed in battle and took civilians slaves. But that was, as I have said before, par for the course in this time.

Nope.  I find what he wrote, stating historical facts, as evidence.  Maybe you don't understand what evidence is?  Your posts  regarding the Vikings' intent, on the other hand, are mostly conjecture.  The funny thing is that both Diesel and I tend to agree with a lot of what you're saying, just not all of it. 

Anyway, I'm done "arguing" with you.  I just wanted to be a pain in the ass about it since you're usually a pain in the ass about every other subject around here.  

Edited January 14, 2018 by Kasanova King