Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ivar the boneless was 9 feet tall. Vikings wear horn shaped helmets. Vikings attacked Christians for no good reason and were uncivilised. The Aztecs were uncivilised and the Spanish were. King John I of England was a bad King.

Ivar the boneless was a disabled dwarf Jarl who conquered parts of Ireland and England. He was carried on a shield lifted by a few people, while he shot arrows from his bow. The idea of Vikings having horned shaped helmets was romanticised in the 19th century by play wreight. The Norse society was very civilised, they were merchants, traders and farmers. The Norse had a lot of women's rights, the women could divorce her husband if he was too abusive or did not make enough money to feed the family. The raids were response to the murderous King Charlemagne who decided to murder Saxon priests and cut down their sacred tree. King John I inherited a bankrupt kingdom after his brother wasted money on the crusade, King John did what was nessacary to keep England a float.

 rockerbikie wrote:
The raids were response to the murderous King Charlemagne who decided to murder Saxon priests and cut down their sacred tree.

While I'm not sure that 'Vikings attacking Christians for no good reason' is a myth (as in I've never heard anyone suggest that) this is kind of neato. I knew Charlie was pretty mean to the pagans, but gotta say I never once thought of it leading to Viking raids. Granted, I doubt that this is the only reason. After all, why would the earliest raids be on Britain if they were angry at the Franks? Still interesting though.

Anytime someone says, I don't know, therefore aliens... like that meme.

Basically saying, I don't have real evidence, but I have no problem interjecting a theory with absolutely no evidence.

The Vikings were heavily involved in the slave trade, the English word 'slave' even comes from the huge number of Slavs that the Vikings captured to be sold into slavery.

I wouldn't be quick to call the Vikings civilised, they were not very nice people. That is to be expected somewhat given when they lived but even by the low standards of the Dark Ages /early Medieval period they were a bunch of bastards.

 MisterMoon wrote:
Anytime someone says, I don't know, therefore aliens... like that meme.

Basically saying, I don't have real evidence, but I have no problem interjecting a theory with absolutely no evidence.

That seems like less of a historical myth and more of a fairly common pet peeve.

That the Vikings were an actual civilisation.

"Viking" actually means something aking to "sea-goer", or "pirate".

They weren't a civilisation but they were a cultural group.

Depends on what definition of Civilization one is using. I prefer the classical but w/e.

Well they were a feudal/tribal nation spread around Scandinavia and their many colonies. If the fractious nation of dark age Britain was a civilization then so was the 'viking nation'.

Oh slightly related fun-fact: The viking practice of bathing everyday was seen as barbarous and uncivilised by the Anglo-saxons.

Did the vikings have slaves themselves? I know they shared the 'thralls' of their fictional ironborn stablemates in limited numbers but slaves seem to have been more of an 'export product' for the vikings.

 Soladrin wrote:
The tripping over and not getting up was only in those battle where the entire battlefield was a muddy field.

Or if they fell off their horse and were injured from the impact with the ground - about as common an occurance as being injured in an automobile accident.

 LordofHats wrote:
Depends on what definition of Civilization one is using.

Sid Meier's, of course.

I always thought "viking" was originally a verb and its use as a noun was a misnomer that simply gained acceptance.

I'm going to viking my girlfriend this weekend.

Wait, what does viking as a verb mean?

 kronk wrote:
I'm going to viking my girlfriend this weekend.

Wait, what does viking as a verb mean?

According to Etymology on Wikipedia, it means an overseas expedition specifically "to go on an expedition."

Ah, then I used it correctly.

Your taking an expedition on your girlfriend? You lucky dog you

Wait? You don't wanna "James Dean'ed" your girfriend? (google-fu that! )

Of course we could play it safe and just say he Kronked her. Would be more specific to the situation.

"Hey baby, lets go Kronking together"

 LordofHats wrote:
Your taking an expedition on your girlfriend? You lucky dog you

Gotta explore the southern shore.

 LordofHats wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
The raids were response to the murderous King Charlemagne who decided to murder Saxon priests and cut down their sacred tree.

While I'm not sure that 'Vikings attacking Christians for no good reason' is a myth (as in I've never heard anyone suggest that) this is kind of neato. I knew Charlie was pretty mean to the pagans, but gotta say I never once thought of it leading to Viking raids. Granted, I doubt that this is the only reason. After all, why would the earliest raids be on Britain if they were angry at the Franks? Still interesting though.

Those were to raise funds against the Franks. It was a war between Christianity and Pagan Religions at the time period. Raids against the Holy Roman Empire and France was also recorded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:
The Vikings were heavily involved in the slave trade, the English word 'slave' even comes from the huge number of Slavs that the Vikings captured to be sold into slavery.

I wouldn't be quick to call the Vikings civilised, they were not very nice people. That is to be expected somewhat given when they lived but even by the low standards of the Dark Ages /early Medieval period they were a bunch of bastards.

The slaves were called Thralls, it happened when you were captured during battle or you fleed the battle and were caught. It was expected you would die in battle. As a Thrall, you were actually treated well. If a lord mistreated a Thrall he often look down upon in Nordic society, a Thrall could even earn freedom.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:
They weren't a civilisation but they were a cultural group.

True. They were a group of nations. Harold Fairhair united Norway, I don't know who united Sweden though.

If I know anything about Sweden I would say that they were united by boobs.

 LordofHats wrote:
The main issue with Roman contact is that its hard to conceive that the Romans or Egyptians could manage direct contact with the Americas without documenting it at all. The Roman empire is the point in history where we begin to find an abundance of primary sources for major events, and yet they might have crossed the Atlantic, brought back trade goods, and never mentioned it in any source material?

We know a lot about the Roman Republic/Empire, and at the same time we don't. We know a disproportionate amount, yes, but this still forms a tiny portion of even just what we know was recorded, but which hasn't survived.

There's also the possibility that they showed up, traded or whatnot, and then failed to make the voyage back, since the ships of that era weren't particularly safe in open ocean.

EDIT: Also, the NY Times piece is on its face pretty incredible. Scam artists like that guy are a dime a dozen (maybe even a Nickle). The other two links certainly raise very interesting possibilities, but Occam's Razor being what it is, the simplest answer at the moment is simply contamination (thought the results of the test to me, seem to be enough to warrant keeping the door open).

I'm somewhat more inclined to believe a competent salvager/looter than a third world government, particularly given the details of that case.

 rockerbikie wrote:
[ Those were to raise funds against the Franks. It was a war between Christianity and Pagan Religions at the time period. Raids against the Holy Roman Empire and France was also recorded.

Now that makes sense. Was it a united effort or more of a personal effort to those who cared enough to take some kind of action?

I'm somewhat more inclined to believe a competent salvager/looter than a third world government, particularly given the details of that case.

His story is about as believable as that whole Egypt building a damn to cover up evidence that ancient Egyptians were black thing, even though they'd been building on that damn dam for upwards of 40 years. So yeah. Me no believy the story teller on that one

I've been reading the books I got for Christmas, and was surprised to learn that the Boston massacre wasn't a massacre, Lexington and Concord wasn't as one sided as its been made out to be, and that a Tiger is bigger than a lion!

Getting back to what I said earlier about Britain in the 1930s, I'd like to point out that Germany wasn't spending more than everybody else on defence, if anything, it was out-performed in that department.

During the 1930s, Britian made and sold more guns than anybody (including America) and out spent everybody. Where as the Germans (being in Europe) spent more money on tanks, Britian's money went on the navy (what a surprise) and a massive upgrade of Singapore's defences (for all the good it did) plus major investments in Radar and the RAF. It's always been believed that Britian wasn't ready for war in the 1930s. It was, just reluctant to get involved.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ia Tiger is bigger than a lion!

Who the hell doesn't know this?

 Soladrin wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ia Tiger is bigger than a lion!

Who the hell doesn't know this?

Tigers are a LOT bigger than lions.

Yeah, thats one of those little secrets that everybody knows.

It's not even a secret.

Elephants are also larger than lions.

Its one of those things you learn in like 3rd grade or something.

Great white sharks are larger than lions.