Fjordlandia Viking bar & kaffistove, main str. 221B, Needlehole [2]

"The Vikings were feared for a reason

World View: Ignore recent revisionism. The Norsemen carried out atrocities to equal those of the German SS"


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-vikings-were-feared-for-a-reason-9241032.html

Overall, the Scandinavians have a lot to apologise for. The leader of almost every Viking raiding party or army about which anything is known committed crimes which today would see them charged before the International Criminal Court.

To all Brits in Forumshire - I hereby, on behalf of all Fjordians, apologise for things our ancestors did a thousand years ago.

{{{ We'll have your bloody island yet! }}}

 (That's to the British view on history.)

To be honest Ringo, you can have this bloody country ! Its on its knees & gone to rack & ruin ! wont be much left for plundering ? In fact you'll be giving US stuff,   
But really ? were the "Vikings" any more cruel than our own,homebred, all loving, Royal families ? let alone ordinary "common as muck" peasants like I ?

Well, he's one guy - we've wierdos of our own too

azriel wrote:To be honest Ringo, you can have this bloody country !

We need to fix these brackets - they don't work at all! The vikings were brutal, no doubt about it. But every country has bad eggs if you go back in time and look for them. I've never understood this need to "apologise" for things we who live in the present were ever part of.

That's an ... interesting article.  On the one hand, I can kind of see where he's coming from.  There is a recent-ish trend towards rehabilitating historical villains, not just the Vikings, but other groups traditionally seen as savages, such as the Mongols or the Germanic peoples ("barbarians") of the migration period.  I think this mainly stems from a realization that no successful society can be comprised solely of bloodthirsty maniacs, and I think that, generally speaking, a more nuanced understanding of their composition and their impact is a good thing.  But there is a risk that in doing so, we forget their victims.  This can range from just sweeping certain things under the rug to outright denialism, and I think it's worth responding to that.

With that out of the way, however, I think this guy does a really bad job of responding to these developments in historiography.  For starters, he engages in plenty of rug-sweeping of his own, complaining about barbaric Viking methods of execution while ignoring more "civilized" practices like drawing and quartering, which persisted for centuries after the Viking age.  Then he engages in misleading analogies, not just the repeated SS comparison but his use of the phrase "total war", which is a distinctly modern concept and not one the Vikings were even remotely organized enough to fit the description of.  The only real similarity between total war in the 19th and 20th centuries and the Vikings is the lack of distinction between combatants and non-combatants.  However, this is not the most important characteristic of total war, and besides, the application of this distinction has been incredibly spotty throughout history, as well as in the present day.  If we're going to talk about historical atrocities, the death toll of the Vikings pales in comparison to some of the shit the Byzantines, Franks, Arabs, and Chinese did around the same time.

It's more a general point, Ringo. But I do find the amount of serious historians who see the Vikings mainly raiders and pillagers troubling.

Eldo raises some interesting points, but I would add some points from a general point of view. It misses the fact that the Vikings were mainly traders and settlers who were seen from the Kaspian see in the east to the Canary Islands in the south to the east coast of America to the west. It misses the fact that England were ruled by Vikings for long periods at that time, the fact that the Normans who conquered England and created the basis for the country you see today were Vikings (wether they were Norwegian or Danish is disputed), the fact that a significant part of the modern British population show some Viking ancestry and that the Vikings as much as any other population group is part of and helped create the country you see today.

This simplified view of them as just raiders and pillagers is presposterous from a historical point of view. And as a lot of Viking heritage survives in Britain maybe they should start with blaming themselves if they want to blame anyone. Because this us/them dimension is for all intents and purposes a modern creation.

And that's without going into the specifics of just that article.

The History of Scotland video touches on this- as the Vikings hit Scotland- particularly the island monasteries pretty damn brutally- plunder, taking people for slaves and indiscriminate murder and rape.

At the same time Scotland is evidence also of Viking settlement and cultural assimilation going both ways.

I think the truth is, some came to stay, some came to plunder. It wasn't one centrally organised plan. Simple as that.

I've known you for four years this summer, Eldo, and still you keep impressing me with your knowledge!

Blue - The vikings were definitely more than just rapists and barbarians. They were highly advanced engineers and skilled sailors and traders as well. There's no denying many of them were brutal, but they were more than that.

"I think the truth is, some came to stay, some came to plunder. It wasn't one centrally organised plan. Simple as that." - Petty

I concur

Throughout history the pattern of those who lead the wave of cultural contact follow a similar pattern:

1. First a ripple of exploration
the next part depends on whether the country has military prowess or not:
2a. Trade or...
2b. Pillage.
3. Settling in

Lots of pillage happening in the New World. Later on what passed for trade by the northern New World with the southern New World was actually thinly disguised pillage.

I think that's well summed up, Halfwise.

And of course you have a point, Petty. There were pillaging. But:

"I think the truth is, some came to stay, some came to plunder. It wasn't one centrally organised plan. Simple as that."

is still a major simplification of their influence. The pillaging is a footnote in comparison to the actual historical significance the Vikings had on British culture and history. Though in the public conciousness it still epitomizes it.

It overlooks that England was ruled for a time by Viking kings, that the Normans who established the basis for the modern country were Vikings and the significant part of the population who share some Viking heritage.

Oh I am not underplaying their influence, on everything from seafaring and navigation to language and dress.
But it has to be seen in the round- they also massacred and plundered on and off and at various times.To quote the Doctor- 'The good things don't always soften the bad things, but vice-versa, the bad things don't necessarily spoil the good things and make them unimportant.'

Yes, though as Halfwise referenced they were far from alone in that.

It's fine to discuss the pillaging and plundering as long as one doesn't forget the fact that Britain as a modern nation is as much a nation based on Viking influence as on Saxon influence or Celtic influence or Roman influence. The modern reality is a mix, where the Viking influence plays a large part.

(basically the same words in norwegian)

I think having to apologize for the things our ancestors did a thousand years ago preposterous. It was a dangerous time to live, the rules were different. They made us who we are now, so for all the bloodshed we now live in a racially and culturally interesting Island.

Why did they pick as examples all words (on both sides) describing my last night out on the buckie?   

Swedish is (in my humble opinion) the most (or only) beautiful of the Scandinavian languages, though.

i think icelandic is pretty ... also danish can at times sound pretty.

That's the first time I've heard it said that Danish can sound pretty (no offense intented to potential Danish readers!). It can sound badass, though. I guess we all hear differently

it depends who's doing the talking.. like nikolaj coster-waldau

Why in Swedish do they use the same word for poison and marriage?   

It's the same in Norwegian. Why in English do you use the same word for the male counterpart to a hen and a man's privates?

in norway to...

Ringdrotten wrote:It's the same in Norwegian. Why in English do you use the same word for the male counterpart to a hen and a man's privates?

Why any blues lyric for that matter  

But to Halfy's question, the marriage/poison is meant at least partly as a joke,  like in English ones spouse may be called "the Ball-and-chain" or "the Battle-axe". right? Or have I got that wrong?

No, you got that spot on Ringdrotten.
And technically the name for male privates and a male chicken isn't the same, as cock regards a chicken is just a shortened version of 'cockerel' which is the proper word.

Although the male penis resembling 'the last chicken on the shelf' is an old joke.