What to Expect from the Viking Apocalypse
- Thread starter Gaze
- Start date
I posted 3 posts...two were tongue in cheek (led zeppelin! and a rather comical clip of the up kelly ah celebrations) and one was semi serious relating to viking mythology
Vandyke then said we shouldn't celebrate these guys......i wasn't! I posted a led zeppelin song and a funny video from the shetlands which i thought was an amusing answer to the question: 'what will the viking apocalypse look like'
The third clip is more esoteric and was for those that are interested in such things
I felt i needed to say something in defence so i said the vikings brutalised my country (scotland) which they did. The shetlands for example still celebrate their viking heritage because the vikings basically took the islands over by force
I know there are arguments that the vikings are missunderstood...i'm not going to dispute any of that......i just posted a couple of daft clips
However if you have something to say about the vikings i would be interested to hear your perspective; i don't personally have any strong feeelings either way so for me it would just be interesting to hear that perspective
Weeeelll.....i think they usually paired up with the women in the lands they settled in...so the descendants in for example the outer hebrides and on orkney and shetland are really descended from the original folk and the viking settlers...it wasn't a totally clean slate
I am Scottish and an interest of mine is the Norse settlement in the Scottish isles. Now either what you are saying is A) Vikings, a.k.a 'Pirate Raiders' brutalised the country by pillaging, or B) Vikings, a.k.a settlers of Scandinavian descent, brutalised the country by stealing land etc. Now I do not proclaim to be an expert in this area but in both cases it seems to have been a rather more complex matter than people simply coming across the sea and f*cking stuff up for everyone in Scotland. I don't have the resources on me right now to start shoving stuff your way but archaeologists have quite recently come to the conclusion the Norse settlers in the orkney isles etc. were most likely repopulating an abandoned area. It seems very likely that the isles had been abandoned by their predecessors for various speculated reasons (salting of the previously fertile farmland from storms being one of them) and left potentially uninhabited, at least around the coastal areas, for periods as long as centuries. Doesn't seem to suggest slaughter. Evidence of slaughter has yet to be found on isles with strong Viking links.
There's also a lot of evidence the Scots and Norse had strong trading relations hundreds of years before any major records of Viking involvement. In the Northern coast and isles it seems very likely there had been relations for hundreds of years, intermarrying, travelling between countries etc. People claiming to have Norse ancestry, people with perhaps Norse dress and techniques but with ancestors living in the area for a considerable amount of time etc. We're looking at gradual settlement and relations, people who looked for opportunity and found land, people involved in alliances between chief houses in both countries, in later years progressing to Danish involvement etc. It's complicated, and there were lots of different people involved, different reasons, different centuries etc.
Had they been slaughtering their way through the country it makes no sense they would inhabit all the less fertile areas of the country such as the West Coast and North coast (regions such as Caithness and Sutherland) and ignore the fertile central belt and Pictish populated Morrayshire. It seems their reasoning for not doing so is because they had good relations with these peoples.
Separate this from the Viking attacks at Iona and Lindisfarne. The monks were most likely very familiar with Scandinavian settlers. It seems these raiders were unknown by either the settlers or the monks. Viking, yes, but just because you share a familiar ancestry with someone is not to say you share their interests. To take a few instances and hold that against hundreds of years of peaceful intermarriage and relations between noble families seems very unfair to me.
You wouldn't turn round today and say to a Scot they're not Scottish if their parents aren't. It seems in Scotland we have a lot of evidence of Scandinavian settlement, in some cases permanently, which means we've got a lot of Viking ancestry. in Scotland we fall into two groups being explored by geneticists- those with considerable Norse, those with considerable Pict. We're all mongrels. My reasoning for bringing this up is I feel it really important for the sake of our ancestry to know more about it. I held a similar opinion as you till I started attending a few lectures and reading more into the subject.
I posted 3 posts...two were tongue in cheek (led zeppelin! and a rather comical clip of the up kelly ah celebrations) and one was semi serious relating to viking mythology
Vandyke then said we shouldn't celebrate these guys......i wasn't! I posted a led zeppelin song and a funny video from the shetlands which i thought was an amusing answer to the question: 'what will the viking apocalypse look like'
The third clip is more esoteric and was for those that are interested in such things
I felt i needed to say something in defence so i said the vikings brutalised my country (scotland) which they did. The shetlands for example still celebrate their viking heritage because the vikings basically took the islands over by force
I know there are arguments that the vikings are missunderstood...i'm not going to dispute any of that......i just posted a couple of daft clips
However if you have something to say about the vikings i would be interested to hear your perspective; i don't personally have any strong feeelings either way so for me it would just be interesting to hear that perspective
Well I don't think they were misunderstood. I think Charlemagne pissed them off.
Edit:
Or basically they were a bit warlike and raiding a long time before, but they weren't barbarians - I think you can see that in the Poetic Edda and Prose Edda, and the tale of Ragnarok itself - their way of life was just different.
But they saw what Charlemagne did to the Saxons and pagans, and they said "Fuck it, that isn't going to happen to us. INVADE EVERYTHING!"
Last edited:
There were two main Viking phases. The first was the clan phase and the second was the kingdom phase. In the clan phase, there were raids and trading missions all over the world.
Some clans were extremely violent and aggressive, others more mercantile. The clan phase started when the Norse sailors discovered England. It was in these first two hundred-years or so that the Vikings reeked havoc from England to Russia through campaigns of shock and terror. Many believe that the tall towers built in mainland England were built as a place for the clergy men to hide in when the Vikings might show up. The Vikings were a scattered group at this time, but they were creepily effective.
Eventually the clans formed kingdoms, and they became more organized. The raids were fewer and further apart, as the kingdom was more interested in expansion and diplomatic relations. Soon we became Christians and that was more or less the end of it.
I'm not saying that you are wrong about connections between the Vikings and the British and Scottish cultures at all. Some Viking clans settled in Scotland, some settled in Germany, others in Italy, etc. This has been the case for any invading and dominating force through history. Turning this into peaceful mercantile trade and good terms between the parties all together, though, is a very liberal interpretation of historical events.
This came across as very mean spirited and arrogant to me. I don't know how or why you would get the impression that I held no academic knowledge about the Vikings. I would not have joined the discussion if I had no knowledge about the subject at hand. I have had many subjects, written many reports and dissertations and read many books about the subject. This both in connection to my education and due to a, somewhat sad, nerdy interest in world history. Also, they were my forefathers, so I thought it would be a good thing to know a few things about them.
I think it might be crossing the line, but I want to accuse you of something now. Since the 18th century, the Vikings have been romanticized in the Anglican world. Their raids, killings and careless rape became a side story to the story of the funny men with horny hats, and big red beards. I fear that you have fallen for this nonsense, and are now apologizing for an invading force that conquered, robbed, raped and pillaged without remorse.
Some clans were extremely violent and aggressive, others more mercantile. The clan phase started when the Norse sailors discovered England. It was in these first two hundred-years or so that the Vikings reeked havoc from England to Russia through campaigns of shock and terror. Many believe that the tall towers built in mainland England were built as a place for the clergy men to hide in when the Vikings might show up. The Vikings were a scattered group at this time, but they were creepily effective.
Eventually the clans formed kingdoms, and they became more organized. The raids were fewer and further apart, as the kingdom was more interested in expansion and diplomatic relations. Soon we became Christians and that was more or less the end of it.
I'm not saying that you are wrong about connections between the Vikings and the British and Scottish cultures at all. Some Viking clans settled in Scotland, some settled in Germany, others in Italy, etc. This has been the case for any invading and dominating force through history. Turning this into peaceful mercantile trade and good terms between the parties all together, though, is a very liberal interpretation of historical events.
This came across as very mean spirited and arrogant to me. I don't know how or why you would get the impression that I held no academic knowledge about the Vikings. I would not have joined the discussion if I had no knowledge about the subject at hand. I have had many subjects, written many reports and dissertations and read many books about the subject. This both in connection to my education and due to a, somewhat sad, nerdy interest in world history. Also, they were my forefathers, so I thought it would be a good thing to know a few things about them.
I think it might be crossing the line, but I want to accuse you of something now. Since the 18th century, the Vikings have been romanticized in the Anglican world. Their raids, killings and careless rape became a side story to the story of the funny men with horny hats, and big red beards. I fear that you have fallen for this nonsense, and are now apologizing for an invading force that conquered, robbed, raped and pillaged without remorse.
Vandyke, I apologise my lengthy post was not directed at you. It was at Muir who was using the 'I know what I'm talking about' card 'because I'm from that country'. I don't feel it's particularly mean spirited given the circumstances. I'm not about to lecture someone from Denmark on Vikings, I am, however, going to point out it's unfair to assume only people from the Scottish isles with strong Viking connections have reason to celebrate such ancestry. While my last mention may have sounded snooty (I'm afraid my whole post was a rush before bed) I was pointing out this is a recent interest, I don't know a great deal, but I was surprised to find out what I did. Had I wanted to be arrogant I would have told you I was a lecturer or some sort (lol I'm not, but I think sitting on a pile of books and calling yourself king of them is a failed attempt, unless, of course you've written them). I think it's important for Scottish culture in the long run if we are able to make sense of a very cloudy history. What I am saying is it was less simple than just 'rawr viking smash'. Can't speak for the rest of the UK because I do not know enough yet. I do know that in the Scottish classroom we're taught just that and most people on the street will tell you that. I'm just trying to clear up a stereotype that divides the Northern Scottish isles from the rest of the country. I feel it's damaging.
So I apologise if I came across as a complete turn up nose.
Last edited:
woah woah woah...I'm not making any claims here! I was trying to spark discussion.....I asked you for your opinion because i am interested and it sounded like you had a strong opinion (i like hearing peoples strong opinions!)
after my initial posts which were mainly comical i have just been defending myself rather than saying 'i know this or that'
From my perspective we have here a dane and a scot who are both interested in the subject matter at hand and personally i'm interested to hear what you both have to say and i'm sure others would be as well
There doesn't need to be any finger pointing here
i gave my interpretation of the vikings which was one given to me by a friend from Lewis which is that the vikings settled with the existing people rather than wiping them out tabula rasa style...which i think is kind of matching what you are saying about scots being mongrels (everyone is a mix), but they did take the shetlands by force; they were not empty of people, they moved in and enforced their rule
There were viking raids around the country and there were significant battles against the vikings across scotland and england...it wasn't all roses
Last edited:
I'm sorry too, I think I overreacted to your post. I genuinely hold nothing against you, and I truly value your opinion!
I agree that an assumption like that would be unfair and untrue, but I must also say that I didn't get that from muir's posts. I think we might just all be misunderstanding each other at this point. I didn't mean to be a party-pooper by my statements about the vikings, but I think that it's odd to say the least that we celebrate these people that were far from Mahatma Gandhi types. Then again, we celebrate a lot of things that are like that. We just take the evil out of it and choose to celebrate the good stuff. Which is good! Wow I can feel my cohesion and point slipping between my fingers
First off, don't mention it. You didn't seem snooty or arrogant, I misinterpreted your post. My bad!
For someone who has just taken this interest up recently, you've learnt a lot, quickly! You were completely right in pointing out that the Vikings weren't a homogenous group of people, and that some of them were more peaceful than others. However, my impression has been that those groups only accounted for a very small minority. Mostly the vikings that I've read about and studied (6-7 year ago, admittedly) were very aggressive, lived in tents, pillaged and left nothing behind. They didn't contribute to culture, as is seen in the lack of anything viking in Scandinavia, except a few axes and the epic graves that are all over Denmark and Norway. Here's a picture of one, because I feel like it ;-) :
The Pre-Christian Norsemen were not at all uncivilized barbarians. I think one of the issues with this thread is that it refers to Ragnarok as the "viking" apocalypse when it's really the apocalypse of nordic mythology. Very few norse people at the time were vikings - honestly, that would be the same as saying that all British people in the 1700s were Pirates of the Caribbean, or that all the people who lived in the Roman Empire were legionnaires or gladiators.
The people who lived in Scandinavia at the time made impressive, artistic contributions to the world in the form of prose and poetry still celebrated to this day. In all honesty, I find it difficult to believe that you have any academic knowledge of the Norse middle ages if you are not aware this. Perhaps you should visit the library, or maybe go on a guided tour to the national museum. The truth is that the Norse people left behind cultural remnants of greater variety, infused with a more outstanding earthly beauty, than the Christians have.
Also, you need to remember that Christianity was introduced in Scandinavia by the sword. People who refused to convert were slaughtered - men, women, and children. All the old temples and holy sites were ravaged, and churches were constructed on top. Throughout the middle ages, so-called "deviant thinkers" were constantly prosecuted by the church, and many were burned at the stakes after having been subjected to the very worst forms of torture. Whether or not the Norsemen were overly aggressive is probably difficult to determine seeing as the world was very different back then. All I can say is that it is a demonstrable fact that they were significantly less bloodthirsty and destructive than the Christians. The Norse society was both multiethnic and multicultural, something that can't be said about what emerged after the fall of the Norse religion.
I don't think that any of us have disputed the claim that not all Norse people were vikings. I was referring to the vikings themselves, and not norse people in general. But remember that the people who were vikings were the cream of the crop, and every one wanted to be a viking. It was considered vital to die in combat, as that was the only way to go to their version of heaven Valhal.
Consider the scope of the Norse kingdoms, and then consider that nearly all of the found poetry and artistic contributions were found on Iceland. Rome has cathedrals, churches, the colosseum and exquisite culture. The Vikings barely had any impact on anything, and did not, as you suggest, infuse the world with great impressive artistic contributions to the world.
Here's a quote from the national museum of Denmark:
"The transition to Christianity in Denmark took place gradually and without major conflict. The Vikings regarded the new belief as supplementing the Nordic gods – it was not simply a choice between the old and the new religion. The Vikings’ belief in many gods meant that it was possible for the new Christian god, White Christ, to be worshipped alongside gods like Thor and Odin. In this way both religious beliefs could exist alongside each other. One religion did not exclude the other. This is shown by the find of a mould, which the smith could use to make both Thor’s hammers and Christian crosses. It was a time of great change and perhaps the Vikings sought security in both religious creeds – just to be on the safe side."
source.
The Christians had a very rough time introducing Christianity in Scandinavia, and the Vikings chose to adopt it themselves. Christianity didn't come swooping in and conquer the north and converted them all into Christian barbarians. The culture died out because the surrounding enemies started defending themselves better against the vikings, and the societies became more organized and centralized. Christianity did indeed deem the viking culture as deviant thinkers in the middle ages, but they didn't go about knocking down temples or great historical and "multiethnic and multicultural" artifacts. They're still here, and they aren't impressing any one - unfortunately! ... It would make for a cool Nick Cage movie, though. Get right on writing that screenplay.
If you weren't implying that vikings were synonymous with Norse people at the time, then I apologize for misunderstanding you.
As for the artistic legacy: while it is true that a substantial amount of the Norse literature originates on iceland, you should be careful not to make the Norwegian contributions appear insignificant. The Norwegian Kings' Sagas were compiled in both Iceland and Norway, and before the great fire in Copenhagen in 1728, the collections of Ãrni Magnússon included a number of Danish and Swedish works as well. I would also argue that literature is a broad term which includes anything from orally transmitted folk stories to books, theatre scripts, and television screenplays. The runic inscriptions are often poetic in nature, written in alliterative verse - very beautiful examples of traditional literature. The Norse people also had beautiful architecture, although most of it was of course ruined by Christian invaders. One prime example would be the Temple of Uppsala, which was supposed to be an impressive monument which rivaled the churches and holy sites of southern Europe. No-one knows what it would have looked like, but it would have been very large and adorned with gold. It wouldn't be unreasonable to surmise that it might have looked like a larger version of the Norwegian stave churches:
It might not be the colosseum, but it's not a tent either.
As for the last thing you quoted: I purposefully wrote "Scandinavia" instead of "Denmark". The way Christianity was introduced in the various regions of Scandinavia varied. In Iceland, its adoption happened as the result of a peaceful, democratic process. In Denmark, the process was kind of similar, although that quote from the National Museum only tells half the story. You might remember reading about the construction of the first phase of Danevirke. In the late 700s, Charlemagne waged a number of wars against heathen tribes in Frisia and Germany, and around 800AD, he began to expand further north. For the next few centuries, Denmark faced a significant threat from the south - since Denmark, at the time, was not a Christian nation, there was a high possibility that a crusade would be called against her - something the Slavic tribes in the Baltic region would experience centuries later (ironically at the hands of the Danish king). Most scholars seem to agree that king Harald chose to convert for two reasons: political pressure from the Holy Roman Empire, and a desire to strengthen his own authority as a monarch. As I wrote in my previous post, there was already a Christian presence in Denmark, so it was easier to make a non-violent switch. However, it's still a fact that the old holy sites were destroyed and that churches were built on top of them (the reasoning seemed to be that converting people would be easier if the new place of worship was placed at the same location as the previous one). I would hardly call this a peaceful conversion. It's a bit like destroying all the tobacco in the world to then applaud the fact that you've magically turned everyone into non-smokers overnight - of course people wouldn't have been able to worship the old gods when all the places of worship were gone. In Norway, King Olav Tryggvason destroyed the pagan temples and tortured and killed people who refused to convert. Sweden held out longer, but in the end that only made the conversion much more bloody. Temples were indeed knocked down, and artefacts were destroyed - not just in Norway and Sweden, but in Denmark as well.
It is sad to think on many levels how much historical items were corrupted and destroyed by Christianity. You see the same scenario playing out all over the world. Artifacts were destroyed, places of worship stolen/conscripted, histories ignored or sanitized to be more Christian and that isn't even counting the thousands who lost their lives.
Then, to make things worse, these things are conveniently forgotten and civilizations are branded with these labels which are far from the truth. For example, Native American oral histories were altered to put Christian religious ideals and spins on them.
Then, to make things worse, these things are conveniently forgotten and civilizations are branded with these labels which are far from the truth. For example, Native American oral histories were altered to put Christian religious ideals and spins on them.
Everytime a pre-christian site was located in the UK the judeo-christian establishment in the form of the royal society of antiquarians (freemasonic) would get in there, dig it all up and destroy or dissapear anything of interest
The vatican has all sorts of stuff stashed away and the jesuits also like to be the first into new archeologcial finds
I have no doubt in my mind of a judeo-christian cover up of older artifacts
I'm sorry too, I think I overreacted to your post. I genuinely hold nothing against you, and I truly value your opinion!
I agree that an assumption like that would be unfair and untrue, but I must also say that I didn't get that from muir's posts. I think we might just all be misunderstanding each other at this point. I didn't mean to be a party-pooper by my statements about the vikings, but I think that it's odd to say the least that we celebrate these people that were far from Mahatma Gandhi types. Then again, we celebrate a lot of things that are like that. We just take the evil out of it and choose to celebrate the good stuff. Which is good! Wow I can feel my cohesion and point slipping between my fingers
First off, don't mention it. You didn't seem snooty or arrogant, I misinterpreted your post. My bad!
For someone who has just taken this interest up recently, you've learnt a lot, quickly! You were completely right in pointing out that the Vikings weren't a homogenous group of people, and that some of them were more peaceful than others. However, my impression has been that those groups only accounted for a very small minority. Mostly the vikings that I've read about and studied (6-7 year ago, admittedly) were very aggressive, lived in tents, pillaged and left nothing behind. They didn't contribute to culture, as is seen in the lack of anything viking in Scandinavia, except a few axes and the epic graves that are all over Denmark and Norway. Here's a picture of one, because I feel like it ;-) :
I think those stone monuments are pre-viking, we have lots of megalithic sites like that in the UK too eg lanyon quoit in cornwall:
View attachment 19948
The problem there is while they may have wanted it to be that way peacefully, Christianity does not allow for room to be a second religion. The Vikings probably wouldn't have a problem with another god - Christians would though, because Christianity was intended to supplant, NOT supplement. People could have been executed for this notion.