I still like the Vikings even though they murdered all of these innocent people including muh ancestors from Germany and Britain

I still like the Vikings even though they murdered all of these innocent people including muh ancestors from Germany and Britain

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >inb4 religionlarp flamewars
    They attacked monasteries and churches for money, there was no idea among them of a broader religious conflict

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I once saw a comment by some moron claiming that the Vikings attacked Lindisfarne monastery in England to liberate pagans from Christian rule lmao.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah these complete morons love to treat the Vikings as some pagan anti-crusaders, I guess it's really picked up over the last few years. You also see it on both sides of the political spectrum

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the stories of Odin, Baldr, Thor and Loki is an Arianist branch of Danite christianity.
        >inb4 people who haven't actually read norse myth says "NOOOOO schizoooo!"
        Jesus studied in Egypt (Heliopolis, Sais and Alexandria) and his primary disciple was Magdalene, not Simon-Peter the mentally unstable, christ-denying little brother of Andreas.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >for me is Paul the Apostle

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >explains the origin of christianity as being what JESUS studied in Egypt
            >hurr durr you prefer a Judean persecutor of early christians
            really that hard to understand that Judea was anti-Egypt, including Egyptian-Israeli heritage?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >explains the origin of christianity as being what JESUS studied in Egypt
            >hurr durr you prefer a Judean persecutor of early christians
            really that hard to understand that Judea was anti-Egypt, including Egyptian-Israeli heritage?

            Can you guise shut about Jesus for 5 minutes?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Honestly I’m a Christian and I’m right there with you. It’s exhausting.
            I’d kill for a day without fedoras, apologists, and zoom zooms larping as trads.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Honestly I’m a Christian

            >I’d kill
            wasted gets.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It’s a turn of phrase anon, come on now.
            And for what it’s worth I’m not exactly heartbroken that some ranting about haplogroups or why pedophilia is ok didn’t get the gets.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >*asserts claim X*
          >"Ok, now before you go and call me a schizo, consider this:"
          >*complete and total non sequitur*
          incredible

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Like poetry.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They also tried looting and burning mosques in Spain kek (plus Vikang raids on orthodox Byzantines)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why killing the unarmed priests?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Shouldn't have been standing there.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Shouldn't have been standing there.

        In Norse law when someone dies their property rights die with them.
        Stealing from priest? Shitty coward behavior.
        Kill the priest so it’s no longer stealing? Odin approves.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Das rite.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      After christianized kingdoms began to forbid trade with non-christians, these raids increased dramatically in volume and thus starting the Viking era, which ultimately in the long run led alot of people to adopting christianity (among multiple other reasons) in the end. Also why in Scandinavia it was mainly kings that would be first to adopt it to "modernize" and not be "cancelled" by the other European christian kingdoms.

      You can also weigh in that not long after Massacre of Verden where Irminsul was destroyed by christians, Scandinavians began raiding more frequently and at a larger scale and attacking monasteries and not just only demanding tribute anymore.

      I think it's many factors that played in together to the development of the Viking era.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nothing personal

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They didn't really, they just stole their shit, killed guys who tried to fight them. But their strategy was to hit monasteries where there was good stuff but not many guys likely to fight back.
    Raiding was common throughout the ancient and medieval world. Herodotus said the women they took almost always went willingly.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      dublin was the largest european slave trade center outside of the muslim parts

      it doesn't matter whether those killed were ultimately "innocent" or not, the christians held themselves out as the enemies of pagans, and so made of themselves and of their people acceptable targets.
      They talked shit, and they got hit. I'm not gonna lose sleep over it.

      if it was about religion why would the pagans accept christian missionaries to their lands?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. Even in the Roman era they had a frick huge Channel Fleet and a series of fortifications to deal with raiding along Roman Britain and modern day France. And this wasn't late-Rome, we're talking 2nd century.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it doesn't matter whether those killed were ultimately "innocent" or not, the christians held themselves out as the enemies of pagans, and so made of themselves and of their people acceptable targets.
    They talked shit, and they got hit. I'm not gonna lose sleep over it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the christians held themselves out as the enemies of pagans, and so made of themselves and of their people acceptable targets
      The only people who give the Vikings this pagan religious identity are post-18th century anti-Christian movements that objectively have zero continuity with what pagan Vikings actually believed in. The Vikings were not like the Teutonics who attacked these people because they were the infidels/the enemies of their religion. They did the same exact shit to each other back in Scandinavia constantly, only they were much poorer than the people they were raiding overseas. They only cared about Christianity insofar as later Nordic rulers converted and attempted to impose their new faith on the populace.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >. The Vikings were not like the Teutonics who attacked these people because they were the infidels/the enemies of their religion.
        You mean the Tuetonic order? Only some of them believed in the missionary work. A lot of them just wanted to live the life of Baltic warlords outside the purview of the Empire like their own Germanic ancestors did. Many times they fought with Baltic pagans against other pagans purely for spoils. A lot of it was glorified protection for burgeoning Hansa league traders.

        The brothers that actually believed in the missionary work mostly did so peacefully.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I meant the Teutonic Order yes. You're largely right about the things they did, though the initial step of conversion tended to be an ultimatum like "Convert or we'll attack you" and if they refused then the locals could be slaughtered/enslaved/and so on. It seems like they had a "face first" method of conversion where the locals would have to nominally accept Christianity before all of these missionaries came to proselytize to them, but that's besides the point. My point is that this concept was completely alien to the Vikings, there was no difference between slaughtering and enslaving Christian Franks, Muslim Muladi, or pagan Danes. The idea of these religious justifications would have been foreign and completely pointless for them.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, you are absolutely right.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The only people who give the Vikings this pagan religious identity are post-18th century anti-Christian movements that objectively have zero continuity with what pagan Vikings actually believed in.
        it's not about any kind of discrete identity. It's literally just christians saying "we are your enemies." You don't extend moral consideration to someone who explicitly says that they won't do extend moral consideration to you.

        dublin was the largest european slave trade center outside of the muslim parts

        [...]
        if it was about religion why would the pagans accept christian missionaries to their lands?

        >if it was about religion
        it's not about religion, that's not what I said. It's just a matter of apathy. They didn't care, because christendom essentially gave vikings the license not to care.
        >why would the pagans accept christian missionaries to their lands?
        because they were moronic

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          why would the vikings need any such religious justification for attacking a weak but rich target unlike the previous centuries of raiding between between and within religious groups? And why strike at England before they touched the actually aggressive frankish empire?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >because they were moronic
          They had an advanced idea of identity that they could sail across the northern sea and kill some random peasants in Ireland due to the hostility of christianity but had no idea that Christianity could convert their own aristocrats over to its own ideas?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no, they were moronic for even entertaining ooga booga israelite magical lava shit

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is utter nonsense. The Danish king was already semi-integrated in the European system and converted to Christianity during the peak of the Viking age.

      It was some sheep herders turned raiders, nothing more.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Religion had nothing to do with viking raids tho. They raided pagans as well as other vikings.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Raids on pagans in scandinvia was usually nonviolent theft. I remember reading of one viking (I don't remember the source, so you're just going to have to dude trust me) who led a violent raid on a scandinavian settlement. When the viking reported his success to his father, his father fricking executed him on the spot for the bloodshed he caused. This would at least suggest that even the pagan norse had little tolerance for civilian casualties. That they then appeared to tolerate civilian casualties specifically when those civilians were christian belies a level of apathy specifically for christians.

        why would the vikings need any such religious justification for attacking a weak but rich target unlike the previous centuries of raiding between between and within religious groups? And why strike at England before they touched the actually aggressive frankish empire?

        >why would the vikings need any such religious justification
        the religious aspect is purely incidental. The relevant part is that the christians declared themselves to be separate and apart from the norse. Christianity was of course the basis for making that statement, but it was the statement itself that prompted action.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          incidentally that seems to be contradicted by practices such as berserkers insulting peoples honor and claiming their land by fighting them in a duel becoming so common it had to be banned later in denmark

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's not a contradiction at all. Berserkers were usually the villains in icelandic sagas. The archetype of a violent savage who slaughters and plunders others is seen as a pretty unequivocal evil in norse society.
            You can also see this in something like harbarthsljoth, where Odin is portrayed as a caricature of a viking warlord, and Thor chastises him for his moral impropriety.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            in that case there's the frequent and violent vendetas occurring in the icelandic sagas

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, and they're caused by the introduction of Christianity and the almost complete destruction of the Asatru legal system. Causing this state was the point as it justified further power centralizing in the hands of the Norwegian monarchy and the Vatican. This is Scandinavian history 101 dude.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you're not the guy who thought clovis was bribed by the catican or something?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not sure who you are referring to but Clovis, among other Frankish elites, was obviously given wealth by the Vatican in return for conversion because every source on his reign says so. We're told that this happened by every source on the matter, and as such this is the dominant scholarly opinion. I've never seen someone argue anything otherwise because it would be ludicrous to do so. Not only was the Catholic Church doing this, but the Byzantine Emperor was as well.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Not only was the Catholic Church doing this, but the Byzantine Emperor was as well.
            Could you elaborate?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Byzantine Empire and the Vatican establishment were trying to maintain control of the Germanic world via gifts of patronage, money, sending clerics, funding all sorts of ventures, etc. It went on to around the 1000s before the Byzantines more or less gave up on the West (this is a dramatic oversimplification but it's around this time that they stopped trying to prop up Germanic elites). A lot of Western history at this point is focused on this. For example, Charlemagne was made Holy Roman Emperor as an attempt to create a stable Germanic buffer against Byzantine assets (the Rome was undergoing an urban civil war at the time, paid for by the Byzantine Emperor of course, so the Pope made Charlemagne the HRE to effectively deputize him). There's a lot of fun stuff involving Arianism and the Huns that's poorly attested (the principal source on the Huns got cut down from a dozen books to like 10 lines because one of the Byzantine Emperors didn't like libraries).

            In the case of Clovis he was originally an Arian (his wife was an Arian), but he ended up taking up Niceneism due to the more lavish benefits given to him by Rome (the Burgundians didn't value Clovis's conversion and marriage all that much which probably contributed to his adoption of Niceneism).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >every source on his reign says so.
            may I see them?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, Gregory of Tours talks about this in his 10 book series, Avitus of Vienne and Remigius of Reims were both eyewitnesses who wrote letters on Clovis, I believe Procopius talks about Clovis but I can't recall how in depth. If you want some secondary literature Mark Spencer's "Dating the baptism of Clovis 1886–1993" goes over this. Ian Wood also wrote a book, "Merovingian Kingdoms ", that discusses the matter.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Gregory talks of no promises although there probably was Sometimehing after the conversion which he attributes to clovis wife and fortune in war

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There were roughly 6 posts in between yours and mine so I highly doubt that you read Gregory's ten books, Avitus and Remigius's letters, Procopius's works, AND Spencer and Wood's books in that time.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >6 posts
            Six minutes, frick me.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I have read gregorys ten books before because someone came with the same claim, he was unable to point to the line and I was unable to find it where gregory speaks of Clovis being bribed by the church to convert

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >didnt read the sources in this thread
            >didnt read the sources in the last thread when given them
            >wont read them in the next thread
            average tradlarper lmfao

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, you have to give me a line! I can't pilpul a book into saying whatever stupid garbage e-celebs have jammed into my head this week, I need a line!

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            blood feuds in icelandic sagas are almost always the product of an initial crime (usually a murder) that goes unpunished due to the lack of institutional forms of justice at the time. Families would have to take matters into their own hands, which inevitably spiraled into unending hatfields v. mccoys shit.
            This was happening all across western europe at the time, by the way, including christendom. Crime was rapant and the government wasn't solving it. The Norman kings in England had to implement the frankpledge and hue and cry system to bring the country under control, which that system essentially consisted of an informal police force summarily executing suspected murderers after a brief court appearance where the suspect wasn't even allowed to speak in his own defense.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anyways, the point of this whole post which only now after posting do I realize that I forgot to include was that blood feuds had nothing to do with viking raids and tolerance for civilian slaughter. It was simply an inevitable byproduct of a society without any form of formal law enforcement.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The archetype of a violent savage who slaughters and plunders others is seen as a pretty unequivocal evil in norse society
            I'm not sure what you mean by this, as it was integral to their way of life. 3 year cycles of raiding by sea was how the Koryos tradition developed among the North Germanics, likely since the bronze age or before this was the case as well. And we know there were various mutations of this tradition among them even to the end of the Viking Age, with berserkers (often resented by broader society apparently) and úlfheðnar who were seemingly quite revered. But to be a Viking meant to go on this three year cycles at sea, trading or raiding or anything often with the maternal uncle as in the broader Germanic tradition.

            What you're saying is akin to saying ancient Greeks resented piracy and raids by warriors. Well, yes obviously they resented it. There were clear punishments by law to those who were defeated. Piracy and raiding was still entirely normalized within their society up until a certain point. Herodotus speaks of it, Plato was literally enslaved at one point. It's also implied piracy is quite ancient to them in cultural works, such as Odysseus outright stating he will recoup his losses via piracy and raiding near the end of the Odyssey.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            priacy was normalized insofar as it refers to looting and theft. As for violence, I once again go back to harbarthsljoth. Thor, through Odin, speaks directly to those vikings who engage in violence and condemns their actions. Thor, of course, as Odin points out, is the god of the people. Archaeological findings confirm this. Thor, as the voice of the norse people, speaks on the subject of the "might makes right" mentality, which he rejects.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            priacy was normalized insofar as it refers to looting and theft. As for violence, I once again go back to harbarthsljoth. Thor, through Odin, speaks directly to those vikings who engage in violence and condemns their actions. Thor, of course, as Odin points out, is the god of the people. Archaeological findings confirm this. Thor, as the voice of the norse people, speaks on the subject of the "might makes right" mentality, which he rejects.

            Societies are inherently multiplicitious because they are populations composed of individuals so it's obvious that any society is going to end up having both cultures of banditry, often with very codified institutions, and also cultures of disliking banditry. Given that the vast majority of Scandinavians, and Germanics as a whole, weren't involved in piracy or traveling violence however it's also obvious that piracy wasn't "integral to their way of life".

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Given that the vast majority of Scandinavians, and Germanics as a whole, weren't involved in piracy or traveling violence
            This is more than a bit facetious. Society in any given corner of Europe was fundamentally different in so many ways 1000 years ago. There were very clear social norms, class was an aspect of daily life. Certain things would have been expected of certain people. Of course slaves and women wouldn't be expected to go through the same pressures put on young men.

            Any further comments from me about concepts like the Koryos would go into pure speculation regarding Germanic cultures or Vikings but that much I do know of. Three years at sea, trained for sailing and warfare and everything else that comes with the territory. It's likely this was the case for Anglo-Saxons and others until some point I'm history, there is literature on the topic. This question really boils down to your view of the koryos and how this changed in any given culture. It's ubiquitous with most IE societies. From wiki:

            >Vikings were made up of groups of young people led by an adult male during a three-year campaign overseas. The social group consisting of the grown-up men (the "former youths') only joined the formation when the time had come to settle in the conquered lands. Indeed, during the Viking Age, the raids lasted for two centuries before a definite colonization occurred in regions like modern-day Britain, France or Russia.

            >In the 13th-century Icelandic Volsunga Saga, Sigmund trains his nephew Sinfjotli to harden him for later conflicts by sneaking with him through the forest dressed in wolf skins, thieving and killing. In a scene that can be compared to the Vedic tradition and the archeological site of Krasnosamarskoe, they removed their wolf skins and burned them at the end of the initiation, since they were ready to return to the host community and follow a life constrained by its social taboos

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They murdered Brits, continental Germanics won again them and also made them pay back every penny they looted.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >made them pay back every penny they looted
      Interesting strain of headcanon.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Danes submitted and prostated to Germans like the little b***hes they were:
        >In response, the Frankish king Louis the German sent a diplomatic mission, headed by Count Cobbo (one of two court counts), to the court of Horik, demanding that the Danish king submit to Frankish overlordship and pay reparations for the invasion. Horik eventually agreed to the terms and requested a peace treaty with Louis, while also promising to return the treasure and captives from the raid.
        >By the treaty, Louis demanded Horik's obedience, which was further secured by Horik regularly sending embassies and gifts to Louis and his suspension of support to Viking raiders.[3]

        Only Anglo peasants worship Danes for some reason, in reality they were pussies. Literally 200 Frankish knights won against 20000 Danish peasants. Vikings were pathetic.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, specifically that battle you listed above. They paid nothing to Franks and instead were paid and kept raiding France.

          Headcanon.

          Also a bit pedantic but I think those who raided Paris and later other cities were from Scania primarily, not even Danes. Most.Normans can trace their ancestry back to Scania.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think you are coping hard and constructing your own head narrative.

            The Vikings lost the second siege of Paris, then they were captured (very dishonourable), then they were hired as mercenaries in service to Charles instead of being executed.

            >Also a bit pedantic
            More like mental gymnastics. Rollo was a Dane.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So, getting the ransom for Paris and getting to continue to Burgundy unhindered is a loss now?

      And for your other stuff: yes, Rollo became a vassal of France. That means he was given Normandy in exchange for protection against other raiders.
      Also, franks really aren't germanics.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Franks are closer to original Germanic stock that Nords. Nords are mixed with Scandi abbos.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They were the Somali pirates of their time

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So this is what happens when you buckbreak a people so hard they still simp for you centuries later.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, exactly like how Chinks still worship Mongols.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Leif was cool guy

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    One of my favorite moments is when a Danish king kidnaps a German town and forces them to make a town in his fief so he can tax them

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    cuck

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Vikings were mostly merchants and traders.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you should disregard any "information" about vikings coming from seething cristcucks of the day

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *