I misspelled King Cnut's name in a primary school essay..and got into a lot of trouble. 😆

@goofygrandlouis6296

4 жыл бұрын

Ha !

@iangeary1916

4 жыл бұрын

I have dyslexia and was reading about Cnut late at night. One of my fondest memories!

@KK-pd3rg

4 жыл бұрын

It's Knut my mates

@iangeary1916

4 жыл бұрын

If you have dyslexia it sure should be!

@infinitysalinity7981

4 жыл бұрын

I cnut even

Matt explains one of the truths of history: look hard enough no one has clean hands

these damn vikings still torment europe today. mostly with built-it-yourself furniture without decent screws. brutal

@hawkhatcher

4 жыл бұрын

apo kos if you can’t smash it in one blow then it’s not IKEA!

@wu1ming9shi

4 жыл бұрын

@@hawkhatcher Would be a good IKEA slogan! XD

@Will-eb7fr

4 жыл бұрын

And those Volvos...

@johnraina4828

4 жыл бұрын

And how about Greta?

@althesmith

4 жыл бұрын

When you die, you are given a test. You are given an office chair or a bookcase, and if you cannot find the secret pocket containing the Allen keys, Odin will cast you from Valhalla and laugh at you!

So drinking a toast from an enemies skull is a no no nowadays? Where will this PC madness end.

@TerillaArtoria

6 жыл бұрын

S Bryant I love the comment section of Scholagladiatora videos, they are so refreshing and amusing

@sirnilsolav6646

6 жыл бұрын

The drinking of skulls isn't something we have evidence for. The translation from where we got it was mistranslated. No evidence the Vikings ever drank from the skulls of their enemies.

@davidbriggs264

6 жыл бұрын

Sir Nils Olav: Actually, while you may be correct about the Vikings, there is evidence that skulls were use as drinking utensils. In one case, an ancient warlord (not from Scandinavia) defeated another warlord and had the skull of the defeated warlord silvered and converted into a drinking mug.

@n4m31355h4dow

6 жыл бұрын

Oda Nobunaga used the skull of defeated enemy to drink sake with his generals and the fact the enemy were former vassal it was like he was saying look it is what happen if you dare betray me

@sirnilsolav6646

6 жыл бұрын

Drake Ensiferum Kind of strange why the Vikings didn't do the same then. Guess it never struck their mind

A DNA survey of the Icelandic population shows that while the Y chromosome (male genetic heritage) is clearly Scandinavian, the bulk of the mitochondrial DNA (female) is Irish/Scottish in origin. Almost certainly from slaves.

@nickwysoczanskyj785

6 жыл бұрын

IceniCharles - Damn, beat me to it!

@keggan519

6 жыл бұрын

Could you link to the study? That sounds very interesting.

@IceniBrave

6 жыл бұрын

Not the study itself, but an article with some more detail: www.irishtimes.com/news/why-people-in-iceland-look-just-like-us-1.1104676

@nickwysoczanskyj785

6 жыл бұрын

Mac Mcnally - An Icelandic genetics firm did a study of the population, in conjunction with Oxford University, around 2000 - it found 63% of mtDNA inherited through the maternal line originated in the British Isles, most likely Ireland. The Y-chromosome paternal genetics indicate around 20% of the male settlers originated in Britain and Ireland. That's actually congruent with the historical accounts of the settlement sagas. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288180/

@thehitomiboy7379

6 жыл бұрын

Well, Irish sex slaves were quite common. The English did it in America. Naturally Icelandic Vikings probably did it too.

It makes me think of Gilles de Rais, who was basically a hero of the hundred years war, friend of Jeanne d'Arc and a powerful lord, but he turned mad and committed atrocious crimes. Even a man in his position was punished. BTW, his castle still exists (partially) and it's pretty awesome, as they are demonstrations of siege engines, look for "Château de Tiffauges".

@spazthespasticcolonel3874

6 жыл бұрын

solstice It's a fascinating, though horrific, story. I'm surprised that it's not better known. Maybe a good topic for a video by someone with a lot of knowledge about that era?

@hrotha

6 жыл бұрын

Nitpick: The degree of his association with Jehanne is often overstated. They certainly knew each other and rode in the same army for a time, but there's really no indication that they were friends or ever worked closely.

@spazthespasticcolonel3874

6 жыл бұрын

hrotha I don't think striving for accuracy is nitpicking! My understanding is that Gilles served in some kind of personal guard or retinue for Jehanne, but your point reminded me, I honestly can't say where my belief came from: an historical record, or one or more of the fictional treatments I've consumed over the years. So I appreciate the caution. Cheers, Spaz.

I saw "English Mercia" on the map and almost wanted to call it "English 'Murica". I hereby repent for my mental transgressions.

@philipcrouch

4 жыл бұрын

All the good ideas that the Americans have: liberty, the castle doctrine, the accountability of government to the people, federalism etc., come from Britain anyway. I think it is OK to consider them honourary rogue Brits. :)

@michaelbates4834

2 жыл бұрын

@@philipcrouch I think the French would like a word.

Humans have always been capable of great brutality. They still are and still do in this so-called modern age. Only the reasons and justifications change.

I don't remember any quotes from the Quran that says Muslims are forbidden to kill unarmed people. It says not to kill innocents, but then so does the bible so one has to define what an "innocent" person is because as far as the Quran is concerned "innocents" don't include "unbelievers." and the Muslims didn't have any qualms killing unarmed civilians either. Likewise with the bible also had a strong distaste for polytheists and the likes.

@shadowwhowalk

6 жыл бұрын

Unlike Protestant Christianity, Islam is a tradition-based religion, hence the Quran is supposed to be understood as the prophet and his companions did. Actually Hadith was written since the time of the prophet and transmitted orally. For instance from Sahih Bukhari: _Narrated Abu Huraira: There is none among the companions of the Prophet (ﷺ) who has narrated more Hadiths than I except `Abdullah bin `Amr (bin Al-`As) who used to write them and I never did the same._ What matters is the trustworthiness of the transmitter and existance of a chain of narration; not simply something being written by unknowns. I assume you mean St. Sophronius. Although he mentioned that there are churches which got destroyed, he didn't mention women and children or unarmed men. The verse in the Quran about crucifixion and cutting limbs actually refers to "Hirabah", which amount to banditry (again, tradition-based, not linguistic gymnastics). It may include highway robbery and rape.

@Jinseual

6 жыл бұрын

St. Sophronius did talk about "lots bloodshed, destruction" and Arab barbarity." Now that I checked my sources again, it was John of Nikiu that wrote about how the Arabs were killing women and children without remorse in Egypt. Also note that the Muslims also slaughtered many unarmed people while destroying many holy buildings in Istakhr, Persia. You can try to justify these killings but my previous statements still stands.

@jukahri

6 жыл бұрын

Muslims follow the law of the talion, the quran clearly states "a free man for a free man, a slave for a slave", so there is a provision for retaliation, even against unarmed 'innocents' I would think if the circumstances are right. Still, the quran also says a muslim's duty towards unbelievers is that of preaching and teaching, that god dislikes aggressors and that the fate of unbelievers should be left in the hands of god in the final days, so unprovoked murder of unbelievers isn't something Muslims are supposed to do. Not that the quran and to a larger extent the hadith aren't full of verses that could, if taken out of their historical and political context, serve as justification for the complete opposite of course.

@Jinseual

6 жыл бұрын

Jukelo The Quran is filled many different commands that Muhammad had put out through the many circumstances he was in. There were some commands where Muhammad orders Muslims to defend themselves if they were attacked and there were also other commands where Muhammad told his followers to attack unbelievers until they were subjugated under Muslim rule for no other reason than unbelief. It is no coincidence that Muslims had launched many unprovoked attacks towards their neighbors throughout their history after the death of Muhammad. For most of Islamic history it became tradition to attack other nations even if they did want peace simply because they are not part of the Islamic world or they refuse to pay usually large sums of money for peace. Even in the 19th century the Muslims attacked the United State's shipping when the country was just created. When Thomas Jefferson asked the Muslim ambassador why the Muslims attacked when there is no history between the new American state and the Muslims, the ambassador replied: "[the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise." The Americans responded with only a small force and defeated the Muslim forces in Tripoli to stop them from carrying out more pirate attacks on American ships. Clearly the Muslims don't follow the law of the talion when it comes to nonbelievers.

@Jinseual

6 жыл бұрын

I'm amazed someone had actually find my comment deep in the comment section after so much time had passed, to interrupt my peace and solitude with talks of Islam. You have to rethink what constitutes as "just cause" in the Islamic world. Sura 9:28 to 9:31. "Believers, those who ascribe partners of to God are truly unclean: do not let them come near the Sacred Mosque after this year. If you are afraid you may become poor, [bear in mind that] God will enrich you out of His bounty if He pleases: God is all knowing and wise. Fight those of the People of the Book who do not believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, until they pay the tax(Jyza) promptly with humiliation. The Jews said, "Ezra is the son of God, and the Christians said, "The Messiah is the son of God: they said this with their own mouths, repeating what earlier disbelievers had said. May God thwart them! How far astray they had been led!" This verse clearly states that Christians and Jews ought to be attacked simply because of their beliefs. This is not a live and let live scenario. The Muslims were commanded to attack people because they ascribed "partners to god." Clearly in the eyes of the Quran, Christians are Jews are not innocent, are unclean and are unworthy of entering the Muslim holy places. Rethink what it means to not take life which "Allah made sacred" Is all life sacred? or is just Muslim lives that are sacred to Allah. This does not equate to "do not kill the innocent" and even if it did command people to not kill innocents we also have to define who is innocent because clearly the Muslims did not believe the women and children of Egypt and Istakhr are innocent. Look back at my other posts to see how Muslim's justified violence in the past. When Muhammad was talking about oppression, he was talking about the Meccan's that drove the Muslim out of Mecca. The Meccan's had driven them out because Muhammad was openly hostile to them. He frequently insulted their gods and even told one of them to "suck their nipples." He was allowed to preach for 10 years inside Mecca until they finally had enough of him. After they kicked him out he proceeded to raid their caravans, provoking them even further to attack. However, the Modern Western society would, look down on people who respond to insults with violence so the Meccan's would still be in the wrong for driving them out in this regard. However, the Muslim's clearly believed that insults towards Islam should be punished severely. When the priests in Spain protested against the abuses committed by Muslims on regular Christians. The priests had insulted Muhammad by saying that he isn't a real prophet, but had made no physical attacks towards Muslims. They were nevertheless executed by the Muslims. More than 50 priests were killed in this way just because they insulted Muhammad. So how the Meccan's treated the Muslim's would be exactly the same as how the Muslims would have treated the Meccan's if the roles were reversed. Throughout, Egypt and Syria the Muslims had destroyed churches, built mosques over them and persecuted the Jews and Christians. Clearly, when the Quran told the Muslims to fight against oppression, it only meant oppression against Muslims.

"VIKINGS!" -Lindybeige

@celtofcanaanesurix2245

6 жыл бұрын

Attila SATAN “BERSERKERS!” -Lindybeige

@simonemastrovito6315

6 жыл бұрын

Celt of Canaan Esurix shield-biting intensifies

@AttilaSATAN

6 жыл бұрын

"berserkers?" with question mark and animal fur.

@TheWampam

6 жыл бұрын

That leaf is wrong.

Hey Matt. Just thought it was worth pointing out on your point about archaeology focusing on trading and other peaceful stuff can stem from the fact that written history already focuses on the violence and murder and invasions and all that stuff, but no one talks about trading networks or textile production or settlement planning or any of that stuff. They wrote about Lindisfarne because it was a real shocking event, but would they ever write about the clothing designs and the food the Danes and Saxons usually ate? Just thought to point it out. I guess most of your audience likes all the violence and weaponry and stuff, and that's fine, but wanting to know about how the early mediaeval Danes organised their farmland and what items (or people) they hauled in their ships to trade, and with whom they traded, or the colonisation process that followed the invasion is pretty cool stuff too! I would say it's sometimes even more interesting. There's only so many ways you can bash someone's head in with a war hammer. :P

@JustGrowingUp84

6 жыл бұрын

I second this!

@observationsfromthebunker9639

6 жыл бұрын

News reporting hasn't changed too much over the centuries. Who is going to be remembered in the yearly report, the 6 shiploads of Danish & Norse traders, or the 6 shiploads who burned and pillaged an abbey and three villages? Or the raiding-fleet that could trash an entire small kingdom so its leader could score status points? The Viking raiders wanted lots of recognition so they could go to Valhalla and they got it. Also trashed the reputation for all their kinsmen back home too.

I think as a whole, history is contantly questioned by people basing their opinions off of modernity. Its frustrating

@PauloGarcia-sp5ws

6 жыл бұрын

fugibubi, IKR, people always do this and its so annoying to me.

@kwanarchive

6 жыл бұрын

Yeah, because only "modern" people hate being murdered, raped, beaten and stolen from. Argh, those modern morals!

@David-ni5hj

6 жыл бұрын

EnderDragonFire This, absolutely this.

@Siberius-

6 жыл бұрын

Today I learnt that "modernity" is indeed a correct word.

@David-ni5hj

6 жыл бұрын

Siberius Wolf And posmodernity a filthy SCAM by perverting that Word.

I started watching Matt first during my early days at university, now I am developing a more academic mindset I find myself appreciating Matt's academic demeanor in his approach to all topics more and more.

I would say that the thing is that people who were going to a raid had to be of a certain character. Also there was certainly a specific culture that surrounded such raid expeditions. No matter what the contemporary morals at their home were the person's mindset could change a lot during such time. When you are among men ready to steal and kill and everyone is full of testosterone, then most people will just fall into line to fill up the social role that is expected from them. And that makes it really easy to be cruel. Just like for example with classic and infamous Stanford prison experiment. So I would say that the fear the vikings generated isn't exactly a Scandinavian thing, it is just a result of the mentality they embraced during raid itself. The scariest thing is that many people today, even from the most developed countries, could do just as much, if they were in the same environment. I agree there is not much to admire or to romanticize. I wouldn't want to have anything to do with people who participated in it. Just as I don't want to be a part of contemporary pirates, drug gangs, private mercenaries, paramilitary groups and such:)

@Jon-yo3kg

4 жыл бұрын

Vikings were no more prone to violence and raiding and pillaging than any other civilization at the time. They were just better at it, thanks to surprisingly modern views on women's rights which allowed them to either join in the raids themselves, or command the homestead while the rest of the folks went off a-viking during the summer, hygiene (which was demonstrated as they were considered more desirable to the Christian women than those women's husbands, and meant that fewer of your experienced soldiers were shitting themselves to death) and advanced technology when it comes to shipbuilding. The more you know.

@jarlnils435

4 жыл бұрын

@@Jon-yo3kg Vikings weren't a civilisation they were professional raider, murderer and outsiders of their tribes in skandinavia. They raided on horseback in skandinavia and with ships over sea. But many other people were also going on Viking most young man to prove themself or Kings to show that they can fight and lead an army. The difference between these typs of Viking is that Vikings wear good arms and armor, the young man mostly wear their tunics or go half naked in battle because they didn't want to damage their only tunic they mostly armed with spears axes and knivs or seaxes . And than ther was the kings or jarls armys who are going on Viking with the elite warriors of the Hird. And the bondings and Freemans of the Leidang (miliz). In England they were all called danes, pagans, raiders and devils but mostly not Vikings.

@Jon-yo3kg

4 жыл бұрын

@@jarlnils435 technically, the Norse term Vikingr (or the plural, vikingar) was used to describe someone who went on expeditions, usually abroad, usually by sea, and usually in a group. It was a fairly neutral term that had no implications of ethnicity or even profession. The verb viking technically means to travel. But we are splitting hairs here, and you know it.

@ianrahl7456

4 жыл бұрын

Stanford prison experiment was a scam, the students were instructed how to act.

@midshipman8654

4 жыл бұрын

Jon “surprisingly modern” I disagree contextually. Women occasionally lead Christian armies as well and were also often In command of homesteads. So I don’t think that was a particular difference.

Not sure I agree with all of the phrasing, as I think it seems a bit biased at times, but I think you touch on an important aspect of historical study. Contextualizing past societies and, in doing so, past peoples is really helpful for shedding light on why events play out in particular fashions and why certain views prevailed in the past, etc... This helps us, as modern onlookers, not lose sight of the humanity of past peoples and can help explain why societies may have engaged in activities that would've been outlandish or brutal to us. Similarly, by trying to piece together cultures of the past, we can gain some insights as to why certain peoples would find action X palatable, but action Y horrific. The example you use, of the Viking raids and Charlemagne's treatment of the Saxons, are good ones for this reason. To most moderns, both sides would be committing horrific acts. One important sideeffect of gaining such perspective is that understanding past peoples allows us to be more critical of current day myths/romanticized images of past peoples/figures/cultures. In doing so we can then enjoy a show like Vikings, or other period pieces, and the more fantastic images it provides without buying too much into myths that these people were supermen/"enlightened"/etc... (Personally, I also think the glimpses of the past we get through history are often far more nuanced and interesting as well - sometimes even fantastic sounding - but that's a different story!) Also, this would've been more fleshed out and longer, but holy shit this is already a long comment for youtube! I was a fan of studying stuff like heroic criminality/social banditry, etc.. so juxtaposing romance and reality is a bit of fun for me I guess!

If you apply modern morality to the past you will always be disappointed.

@InqWiper

6 жыл бұрын

There is less skinning people alive but more sexualising children. You win some, you lose some.

@XBLspartanx170

6 жыл бұрын

then is there a such thing as virtue if it is nothing more than a superficial cultural habit? no, humans are capable of empathy, its just those few assholes that trick otherwise good people into doing horrible things that really define the dark ages.

@Ken19700

6 жыл бұрын

Leif Burman, yes but you will be accurately disappointed. People today should know better. People in the past generally thought they were doing the right thing, or at least were doing things that were socially acceptable at the time.

@thisguy976

5 жыл бұрын

@@Ken19700 it's socially acceptable nowadays to buy cosmetic products but that causes the destruction of forests... And certain wildlife to be deprived of a habitat. So should I still do it? No. People in the dark ages knew killing people would end their life and hurt them physically in the process as well as hurting their families mentally but they still did it like the bad fuckers they were.

@keegobricks9734

4 жыл бұрын

And vice versa.

Context in the title of the video? Our minds are about to be deeply penetrated with context everyone.

Matt, could you do a video on ranged weaponry? Was ranged weaponry responsible for more deaths than melee weaponry? Was ranged weaponry superior to melee? Ranged tactics etc. Thanks.

@PopeCocksmoker

6 жыл бұрын

Well, killing your enemies before they can get close enough to hurt you is a very sizable advantage, you know? It's clearly a vastly superior option unless your enemies brought countermeasures - which is why practically all warriors did. There's a reason why shields were independently developed by almost every culture - if you're on a battlefield and don't have one, or some seriously heavy armor, you're going to catch some manner of flying pointy thing to the chest very shortly, and that's a bad way to begin a battle. People that fought *naked* still felt the need to carry shields, which should tell you how much of an impression ranged weapons made.

@_TheDudeAbides_

3 жыл бұрын

@@PopeCocksmoker I recommend that you listen to what Matt has to say in the matter. Different shields were used for different situations.

@PopeCocksmoker

3 жыл бұрын

@@_TheDudeAbides_ Did I say they weren't? I said "you can tell how effective ranged weaponry was by looking at how many cultures brought shields to the battlefield". Which is pretty much all of them.

Were the Vikings immoral by modern standards. Yes Were other cultures just as immoral. Yes Does this somehow make them moral through moral relativism. No. Nearly everyone was monstrous in the past, but we should continue to look at their morals an examples of what NOT to be.

@00Trademark00

6 жыл бұрын

I would not say everyone was just as immoral. There is a difference (admittedly a slight one) between murdering innocents without a second thought and murdering innocents against the better angel of your nature. Christians sort of knew what Jesus was teaching and at least sort of agreed that those were all good things. They would not necessarily always (or even most of the time) behave according to his teachings but they would at least realize that it was somehow morally wrong. I remember hearing about this story from the Merovingian dynasty in Frankia where the ruler and his wife decided to burn their home and a lot of their property out of guilt. Faith did not stop them from hurting people but at least it made them regret it (I could probably look it up, it is from lectures about the early middle ages one can find online recorded as a series of videos, I guess it is from Harvard or another Ivy League university). Progress. I am not a Christian myself so I don't know all the things Jesus said, perhaps a part of it was some questionable stuff as well, but more or less it seems to be very nice things like (in plain words), "don't judge others before you judge yourself", "treat others as you would like to be treated by them" and so on. He was also a bit to idealistic and starry-eyed, "turn the other cheek" is just plain unrealistic but at least it was nice. Compare that to the pagan gods who were more or less just immortal people with superpowers but also with just as many moral flaws as ordinary men.

@PomaiKajiyama

6 жыл бұрын

I disagree with your assessment of Christianity as somehow morally superior to other religions. Whether monotheistic(Christianity, Islam, Jasaism, Zoroastianism, etc.), polytheistic(Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse, Hindu, etc.), non-theistic(Buddhism, Confucianism, etc), animistic (Jainism, Shinto, Shamanism, etc) or ancestor worship, all religions have the same fundamental core. However, people will always do first what they want, and then try and justify it latter, so using religions texts to somehow make a claim on the morality of the individuals is not accurate. Don't forget that the Pantheon of Norse gods had not just gods of war, thunder, and mischief, but also gods of justice, agriculture, and craftsmanship. Another example, Matt points out how because all the countries in Europe were Christian that a semblance of peacefulness was there relative to them and the Vikings, however they also didn't differentiate between combatants and non-combatants like Islam, but that doesn't mean Islamic cultures are morally superior to Christian ones now. All conflict can be boiled down to simply In-Group and Out-Group dynamics. Everyone belongs to multiple groups, and thus you can shift allegiances from the micro (self, family, tribe, village, town etc.), to the macro (country , culture, ethnicity, religion, etc.), to the arbitrary (Height, skin tone, hair color, eye color, etc.), so there will always be in-groups and out-groups. Conflict comes when the tension between in-groups and out-groups over various things(resources is the dominant example) spills over a certain threshold that changes across cultures and time. The way to reduce the tension in the past was to either eliminate the out-group, assimilate the out-group, or ignore the out-group. Considering we for the most part agree that genocide is wrong, and assimilation at this point is getting the entire population to consider the rest of the human population to be part of their In-Group which requires a non-human Out-Group to contrast against(Aliens, Killer Robots, etc.), because it's easy to divide human populations into subgroups to create an Out-Group. Today we consider the idea of killing off another out-group completely to be abhorrent, and also the idea of dominating another culture with your own is generally considered wrong as well, all that's left is ignoring the out-groups which is the true basis of modern tolerance (Though some people still ignorantly try to make tolerance a form of assimilation which is incorrect). I think that comparing how an in-group treats their out-groups with human life being having the highest moral value on the planet, is a better basis for morality than philosophizing over whether people felt bad for being a monster. Now that we have a common dynamic to compare, would you say that the Vikings treated their out-groups any worse than the Christians? The answer is debatable on individual data points, but taking a statistic view of the situation, I would hypothesize quite strongly that if you were actually able to quantify morality as a number for statistical analysis, then comparing the two cultures would show the difference to be statistically insignificant. If you were to also compare both to modern standards of morality, I hypothesize that the statistical significance would drop even further as well. I can't say for certainty because I haven't actually done the stats themselves, but after doing enough statistics on human populations, you start realizing that the differences between humans in general is so insignificant that finding anything significant at all is an achievement.

@Nickname-hier-einfuegen

6 жыл бұрын

Morality is always socially constructed. Judging people by the standards of a specific morality who aren't part of that social group is common in politics etc., but it just makes no sense in history science. People will always think that their point of view is the height of culture and civilization, that they're not at all like those barbaric other people, especially those people in the past. They'll say the same things about us, just give it some time.

@00Trademark00

6 жыл бұрын

You make a good point with the in-group out-group dynamics. The Norse and the Baltics were the last outgroups of Christian Europe. But it is not all. The Vikings too other Scandinavians as slaves too, so Christians might have treated their in-group better than the Scandinavians did. Still, you do have point there. However, I disagree that all religions are fundamentally based on the same thing. Particularly traditional pagan religions (like all the Greek, Roman, Celtic, Germanic or Slavic gods...or even Japanese Shintoism, I guess) don't tend to be so much about good or bad. There is a big difference between these religions and the Abrahamic religions which are a lot more manichean and moralistic (not necessarily more moral, but more moralistic). And at least in theory, the "heathens" were there for the Christians to "save" (and in the logic of the time when almost everyone firmly believes in an immortal soul, it even sort of makes sense to "save" someone's soul even by forced conversion or if you kill them in the process). Obviously, people did not always behave according to those teachings, maybe not even most of the time. But at least they usually had a sense of doing something wrong. For a Norse Viking, raping on a raid was not even worth the "forgive me father for I have sinned".

@Nickname-hier-einfuegen

6 жыл бұрын

@ 00Trademark00: The only reason you think that slavery is something bad is because you were born into a social context which is heavily influenced by christian ethics and the period of enlightenment. The equality of humans is a very modern concept, not some kind of universal truth. We just happen to take it for granted.

21:03 The issue is just that people tend to overly focus on just one aspect of the culture. The people of the viking era in the Nordic region where so much more then just raiders so only focusing on that does them injustice I feel... Yes, they raided. But that was just a small part of what they actually did, and there's a limit to how many of them actually took part.

Among the Swedish rune-stones that mention viking-raids abroad, almost half of them tell of raids in England. So the view that the vikings who came to England were of solely Danish or Norwegian descent is demonstably false. However the English mostly did not separate between Scandinavians and referred to them as simply Danes, no matter where they were from. Also, since Sweden was more remote than Denmark and Norway, and since the Swedes in England often fought under the banners of Danish kings, they would not have been mentioned specifically. Just so you know.

@jarlnils435

4 жыл бұрын

Southern Sweden was at this time danish

@KarimTheilgaard

4 жыл бұрын

Large Mammal exactly. Any rune stones found in what today makes up southern Sweden are Danish. The tribe who would later give Denmark its name even originated in Scania. So in a sense, there is no region more Danish than Scania. But with regards to the people settling off the back of the Viking raids, no doubt they were more diverse.

@Stissen

4 жыл бұрын

Large Mammal Loads of rune stones about viking-raids from the Uppland-area in Sweden. That’s close to Stockholm, so no danes there although those who went away on raids were inspired by the Danes and got filthy rich going along on the danish-led raids.

@alriktyrving5051

4 жыл бұрын

Jarl Nils and Large Mammal. The Skåneland region runestones are not regarded in this respect. When historians speak about Swedish Runestones they specifically mean those from the Swedish realm of the viking time period. Most Swedish Rune stones are from the Uppland region anyways.

@meadish

2 жыл бұрын

@@DaDunge Do you have a link to a source that states the people of Skåneland spoke a unique language significantly different from the Danish dialects (I have no problem believing it was fairly different from Mälardalen given the distance and large forested areas in between - but water was not much of an obstacle to Vikings).

Seems to me like someone's still salty about the Danegeld. ;D

@nikolaspersson1052

6 жыл бұрын

Matt is probably training for St. Brice day massacre II

@bigbearfuzzums7027

5 жыл бұрын

Or prepareing to be tossed over the fence for the liberals multiculturalism!

I generally judge people by the morality of the times in which they lived, and by that logic the Vikings were no worse than any other dark ages civilization. Raiding and pillaging aren’t all bad when compared to Charlemagne forcing hundreds of thousands of saxons to convert to Christianity or die, or to the violent invasions by the Islamic caliphates into Iberia or the Eastern Roman Empire, and the beginning of things like ghettos and pogroms on mainland Europe.

@JustGrowingUp84

6 жыл бұрын

Even by the morality of those times, the vikings were bad - just like the christians or muslims who killed and abused those they conquered. Do you think the victims of vikings/christians/muslims were thinking something like "damn, we're getting killed and pillaged and raped here, but that's okay, because these are the Dark Ages! Yay!"? I'm partially joking, obviously. Of course many people who were abused would have no qualms inflicting the same abuse on others. But not all. And just because something is an accepted fact of life doesn't mean that people consider it morally good - infant mortality is a good example. Or taxes. ; D And of course there were various tricks people would (and still) do to deceive themselves that they're in the right - religion being a good example (Hey, it's okay to pillage/murder/rape those people, they're heathens!).

@Alejandro-te2nt

6 жыл бұрын

oh you mean like when spain was the only nice place to live in europe cause of the moors?

@abnunga

6 жыл бұрын

Someone else was being a big jerk doesn't stop the vikings from being big jerks too.

@klavakkhazga3996

6 жыл бұрын

The islamic expansion into iberia wasn't that brutal, the christian kingdoms were weak and fell in a couple battles. No force converting or massacring, just occupation of decaying lands. They brought in advancements that improved drastically life in cities and villages (people seem to mention this only when talking about the romans for some reason), art, science, management and construction. The written sources of the "invasion" are written hundreds of years later by christian priests, so imagine how "unbiased" they are.

@NesRuA

6 жыл бұрын

The Moors invaded a relatively peaceful Gothic Kingdom, in which case you are correct. But in the case of the Saxons, they had already demonstrated Charlemagne that they were capable of causing serious trouble, so part of the reason he forced them to convert was so that at least they'd play the game by the same rules. After their Christianization, you generally don't see them get bullied around because they're beholden by the same Christian morals.

I did a couple of DNA tests a couple years ago knowing my father's people came from The Isle Of Man and London. It was funny when my English DNA was all Danish and Norwegen. Pretty interesting and strange.

@ramsaysnow9196

Жыл бұрын

there is no such thing as english DNA. Danes,anglos,norwehians 1000 jears ago were practicly the same people.

@dierkrieger

Жыл бұрын

@@ramsaysnow9196 Ok it says British and I didn't create the DNA test so don't shoot the messenger.

@ramsaysnow9196

Жыл бұрын

@@dierkrieger i know the test should name haplogroups not lands from where they claim those groups exclusivley come from :)

@Matt Easton: It took me a bit to figure out the exact point of the video. So you warn against romanticising the vikings, I'm all with you on that. However, it seems as if you still want to stress that the vikings were somehow more callous than other European peoples. On that point I disagree. It's also been ten years for me, since I studied the viking invasions of the British isles, and haven't since concerned myself much with the subject, so bear with me. The following is from what I recollect without rereading any books. First off, the vikings were indeed described as especially callous by chroniclers, but whether they were callous because they were heathens (as you seem to suggest), or described as callous, because they were heathens (as I suspect), is really not clear. The vikings themselves barely did leave any writing, none of which describe the same events of plunder that we know of from the chronicles. The only chroniclers were christian monks, and accuracy was generally less important to them, than was 'the lessons' to be drawn from history. Hence, many of the viking raids are described in apocalyptic terms, as a punishment by god, etc. The fact, that the vikings were heathen might well have had a bearing on the targets they chose; a believing christian might have balked at killing monks, while a monks status meant nothing to a non-christian. However, and most importantly, monasteries were usually the richest places around. I am not convinced either way, weather the monks' own descriptions of slaughter were correct or not, as the authors had a vested interest in depicting the raiders as especially vile. Turning the thing around, I would argue that christianity as an ideology might have given the people a respect for the lives of other christians, but not of other people in general. Regarding comparisons with other peoples, the following from a lecture stuck in my mind: Ireland at the time was so fragmented, that almost any chieftain of a village could call himself a Rí (king), and they had an intricate system of over- and underkings. The different clans waged war on one another all the time, and they tended to use monasteries as treasure keeps as well, since they were the closest to a fortress there was at the time. Monasteries in Ireland were also often plundered by other, christian, clans for this reason. Most notably, from what my professor claimed, these raids were described much the same, when mentioning the atrocities committed. Rape and murder seem not to have happened to an unusual degree when the perpetrators were vikings, as opposed to christians. In time, the vikings seemed to have figured out, that it was most lucrative to collect ransom from the church, so instead of pillaging villages, they very specifically targeted priests and bishops for kidnapping. As an interesting aside: Although the vikings are generally regarded as the outsiders coming to the isles and continental coasts to raid and then vanish on the horizon, it seems as if the very same thing happened in Scandinavia, where the Slavic peoples of the Baltic did the exact same thing and raided the danish islands (they seem even to have copied the types of ship generally identified as 'viking' ships). The Scandinavian/viking traders on the Volga were apparently regularly raided by Pechenegs and Bulgarians. In conclusion: I agree that romanticising vikings is silly and the historian's common caution, of not veering off into some kind of nihilism when considering actions in a chronological context, applies. Given the very thin foundation of sources, and the very homogeneous origin of same, I do not think your singling out of the vikings as a special category is entirely justified.

@JustGrowingUp84

6 жыл бұрын

The vikings are singled because, by definition, they're raiders - as opposed to the norse people by the whole, who were also farmers, and traders, and craftsmen, and warriors etc. Imagine treating all the christians or muslims by the way the christians or muslims raiders/murderers/slavers behaved. By definition, vikings WERE, in general (not always), the worst of the norse people. So comparing them to christians or whoever else isn't fair. If you want, you can compare pagan norse PEOPLE with other PEOPLES, like pechenegs or bulgars or byzantines . But saying that vikings weren't any worse than christians is like saying that the christians who murdered and pillaged and raped etc. weren't any worse than the peaceful christians who just farmed their lands and never bothered anyone. See where I'm getting at?

@Wight977

6 жыл бұрын

I believe in this context Matt Easton is using the word 'viking' to refer to the Scandinavian culture and peoples (Danes, Norwegians and Swedes to be most specific) as a whole rather than just those who were involved in raiding and invading looking from 0:56.

@davidbriggs264

6 жыл бұрын

Actually, I would tend to disagree, and state that Matt (aka Captain Context) was referring to those who were involved in raiding and invading as VIKINGS. In the past he has stated that while all "vikings" were Scandinavian, not all people from Scandinavia were vikings, and so to state that you are descended from vikings just because you have Scandinavian ancestry is wrong.

@topiasnatynki9130

6 жыл бұрын

David Briggs are you talking about The Sami people because its okay to call all norse people vikings. Even historians do that. "Today, however, the Vikings concept has expanded to include both merchant tours and expeditions, or even Scandinavian populations as a whole."

@davidbriggs264

6 жыл бұрын

Topias: NO! The Term VIKINGS refers specifically to those raiders from the Scandinavia during the middle ages, specifically from circa 800 to circa 1100. Not everyone living in Scandinavia was a Viking, and not all Vikings were from Scandinavia, since I'm sure that some were from areas just outside of Scandinavia proper (or what we consider to be Scandinavia today), but that does NOT refer to any modern peoples living in the areas from whence the Vikings came from.

I'm fairly certain that the raid on Lindisfarne was motivated by more than just greed. One of the Vikings actually defecated on the altar. That's not a place you choose for convenience. While the Vikings won't have taken the murderous situation and blood drenched scene as gravely seriously as modern people would, it's unlikely that they were in a mood for pranking. They were in control of the place, but they knew there were serious ramifications, if anything went wrong. So, it wasn't for convenience, and it probably wasn't a "prank". That means that it was a deliberate point, a message or a symbolic act. To be worth doing, the altar must have been known to be more than just a table. They knew that it was sacred to the Christians. I'm afraid that all that was done at Lindisfarne was entirely deliberate. They meant to shock. They meant to be cruel. They meant to blaspheme. They meant to scare. They meant to kill unarmed people. Doing this was probably the main motivation. The valuables were just a bonus. According to Snorri's Heimskringla, hovdinger (powerful religious leaders), jarler (earls), drotts (a form of minor king, but not "descended from Odin"), and konger (kings, "descended from Odin") from all over Scandinavia had sent warriors to fight alongside the Saxons, against the Frankish invaders. The Danes especially, but also other Scandinavian men of power must've been worried about the Frankish/Christian expansion. Twenty years before Lindisfarne, the Franks had executed a minimum of 4,500 captured Saxons, reportedly after forcibly baptizing them, and destroyed the holy tree Irminsul, which the Norse also considered a holy, earthly incarnation of Yggdrasil. To the Norse, the distinction between the Franks and Christians must've been academic, at most. In Scandinavia, there were rational, but deeply worried, men of power and wealth, and there were outraged and furious commoners. In addition, Scandinavia had suffered a "plague of peace" since the end of the Migration Period. During that period is when they had developed a warrior culture, where religion, honor, power and status was based on war; peace was actually a bit of a problem. Mounting raids against Christian lands was very easy, then. Funding was available, eager warriors were available, it would proffer honor and respect, risk meant little to the warriors, and the powerful didn't see that they had anything to loose. The best case for the Viking raids starting as a counter attack is that it worked. That means that the possible motive isn't idle, modern speculation, but is based in the realities at the time, and thus probably apparent to the Norse, as well. The Franks very quickly got over any notion they may have had of expanding into Scandinavia, and instead got very busy protecting themselves. Where the Lindisfarne Vikings came from can only be speculation. The Danes had the biggest rational motivation, but there probably wasn't any place in Scandinavia where the population didn't have a motivation to kill Christians, "just to watch them die". The answer is probably in who had the best opportunity. It had to be someone who wasn't entirely tied up in the ongoing hostilities in Saxony. It had to be someone who had the resources to waste, if things went wrong. It had to be someone who routinely crossed open ocean; they had to know the coastline and be reasonably confident of getting there, and back. My guess is that they came from one of the Danish islands, or south-western Norway. To me, that seems like the best combination of motive and opportunity. It's nothing but an idle guess, though. Of course, when it turned out to be incredibly profitable and successful, I expect that greed very quickly became the main motivation. After all, they were only (in)human.

@jakublulek3261

2 жыл бұрын

I guess that peace was a "problem" because eager warriors would start feuds between themselves or try to overthrow their lords to became lords themselves. Sending them out on raids could have also these practical reasons...

The English were bad during the HYW. The Black Prince burned down more than 500 villages during his chevaucheé in the south.

@davidedbrooke9324

6 жыл бұрын

PolluxVarangir fair enough, the French often raised the oriflamme which meant no quarter.

@TheHaighus

6 жыл бұрын

Altrantis The issue is that much of modern day France was under Englih control before the HYW, and subject to the same kind of raiding and destruction, such as Aquitaine and Gascony. The war initially started because of squabbles over this territory.

@Altrantis

6 жыл бұрын

Not really. The English were high practitioners of the Chevauchée. The term being in french is misleading since English nobility spoke french at the time. When the french took control of mot of Aquitaine and other such during Philip's reign before the HYW, the practice was not institutionalized, and the looting was used for the most part simply to sustain the army rather than to explicitly cause harm.

@davidedbrooke9324

6 жыл бұрын

PolluxVarangir The reason was to create a space in between them and the French , don’t forget England had a tenth of the population of France.

@davidedbrooke9324

6 жыл бұрын

Altrantis Innocent french farmers? Hahahahahahah you taking the piss? The French peasantry had more to fear from their overlords the so called nobility.

When speaking about Vikings "raping and pillaging" you should note that rape only took on its present meaning in the late 18th century. Before that it referred to any kind of assault or to theft

@Endoptic

4 жыл бұрын

Yep, predication of rapine.

Probably best to quote Hannibal Lecter: "We live in a primitive time, neither savage or wise, Half measures are the curse of it."

What is the resaon for the map at 1:08, showing av modern map and some kind of cruise tour

"In Chrisrtian lands, as far as I know, there was nothing really discouraging anyone from just killing enemy populations..." What about the fifth commandment, Thou shalt not kill?

@truepremise2053

4 жыл бұрын

According to Christian Logic, God kills himself....which "fulfills" the law which precedes the 10 commandments.

@acem82

4 жыл бұрын

​@@truepremise2053 It's more like "Thou shalt not murder (slay)." As no one deserves the life God has given us, if God takes the life he has given you, he has only retracted the gift he has given earlier than we think he should have. Humans on the other hand have very few times in which they may take another's life, those being: #1 Self defense (or defense of others). #2 Justice (the person murdered). #3 Breaking the rules of God's chosen land (Deuteronomy 12:1, which applied only to ancient Jews in Palestine). Please don't talk about what you don't understand (Proverbs 17:28).

@truepremise2053

3 жыл бұрын

​@@acem82 If you create the life of your child, suddenly you believe you at all times have the right to murder that child. SHOUT THAT AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD INCLUDING A CHURCH. Fucking Abrahamic Gestaltics.....asserting double-standards at all times. You're just doppelgangers gasligting people with the claim that you hold authority from Deity to do evil things because he does them too....but then say I shouldn't do it because Deity commanded that I shouldn't. I get the implication. You're just to dishonest & egotistical to just fucking humble yourself. ps: Conservatism was actually originally practiced by Devil's Son Theologians [Non-Saturnian Worshiping Pagans who believed strongly in Actual Independence.] I'm a Deist Devil's Son. I do not falsely accuse Deity [the living 4th dimension], Eden [your "adam"] or Ejue [your "eve"] or Tyr [your "cain"] or Loki [your "able" & "jesus"]. Infact, there is nothing unique about Abrahamism [Judaism, Christianity, Islam] that is good or true. Literally everyone else in the world was able to exist successfully & WHITES especially were able to socially exist before Saturnianism [from the Romans] & Neo-Saturnians [from the Semites] was violently imposed upon the rest of my race. Deity despises your kind.

@notanonymous3976

3 жыл бұрын

@@truepremise2053 im afraid i dont have the full mental capacity to comprehend your message. would you please point me in the correct direction in order to attain this higher knowledge

@coyotetrickster5758

3 жыл бұрын

Um, you must be new to history.

Re: the eleventh century commonality you mention among Europe esp. as regard to the crusade... would be interesting to see how much of this was coming together not out of common ideas but out of necessity is response to the Islamic incursions that occurred? Lots of interesting history in these "dark ages"....

Weren't the vikings by definition raiders? As in the term Viking being that specific subset of northmen who took to the longboats and went raiding for a living?

@CarlosSanchez-my7zg

4 жыл бұрын

Most historians consider viking more of a verb. Like jump, run, viking... So vikings were the rowdy people that went off to raid. Most of the nordic people were farmers, etc.

Are there any texts that you can suggest that might provide historiographical insight into the perspectives of the Vikings themselves? Diaries or records written from their perspective.

Oh my god another Flashman fan! Seriously Matt I love your video's and your alternate and well thought out views on Martial Arts/History but I'm really blown away to find another Mc Donald Fraser fan!, You may have heard this tip before, but his semi Autobiographical works about being in the Army (Mc Auslan in the rough etc) are a great read and an eye opener about Colonial Army life, Honestly I relearned my love of History by reading the Flashman papers and then comparing them to the Histories of the relevant stories that Flashy was put in the middle of.

Saying it's forbidden to kill innocent civilians in the Quran is a bit of an oversimplification since from their perspective you were not an innocent civilian unless you were muslim or sometimes when they felt like it, another of the abrahamic religions.

@sugoi9680

4 жыл бұрын

You shouldn't talk out of your ass

@pandasniper1

4 жыл бұрын

@@sugoi9680 you shouldnt talk out your ass.

a great example of cultural viewpoints of a same event or person: the French historians talk about "William the Conqueror" with pride (and his men as heroes), England talk about "William the Bastard" emphasizing that he was a "bloody bastard" (and his men not any better), and the rest neutrally talk about "William of Normandy", a man from place "X" who attacked place "Y".

Hey Matt! Good video, wanted to know if you are excited for the Total War: Thrones of Britannia.

... and before anyone judges anything pre-modern, keep in mind that the 20th century was the bloodiest century ever.

@GM-vt6is

4 жыл бұрын

Well, in terms of absolute number of people killed, we can expect every century to be bloodier than the last, as population expands exponentially..major and minor conflicts are so only in context.

@_TheDudeAbides_

3 жыл бұрын

@@GM-vt6is We can easily account for that in our comparison, though. It is the easiest thing in the world to just calculate it per capita instead of as a sum on its own.

The difference between Anglo Saxons and Vikings? 400 years.

@stip3m4m1c8

5 жыл бұрын

Nope...but ok

@jonathanwells223

4 жыл бұрын

david bradley Anglo Saxons and Saxons are different things

@julianshepherd2038

4 жыл бұрын

The baltic

@Soddie118

4 жыл бұрын

@@jonathanwells223 The point went over your head.

@markthervguy

4 жыл бұрын

@@jonathanwells223 They are more the same than different. Genetically you cannot tell the difference between a Anglo Saxon and a Dane. They share a common root language, religion, and culture. The only difference between Anglo Saxons and the Viking Danes once the Anglo-Saxons became Christians they were no longer a warrior culture. They stopped raiding and became another pastoral culture like the rest of Christendom.

I am from Norway and my father took one of those DNA ancestry tests a while ago. I don't remember the numbers exactly, but I think he was 50% of Norwegian ancestry, and 45% of Brittish ancestry, and the rest I don't remember

Hey mat are you going to put that pillin made rife officer's sword on Easton antique arms? Just wondering.

@scholagladiatoria

6 жыл бұрын

Pretty sure that's already in my sold items on the website now.

@willem8249

6 жыл бұрын

oh thanks

0:03 I see Matt, and hear Lindy. What have I done with my life? 9:10 That reminds of a study once done in Iceland to determine the ancestry of the people. Turns out most people have aScandinavian male ancestor, and an Irish-Scottish-English female ancestor.

A few other things to think about: 1. When Norway became a unified country, the early kings of Norway tried to stop their subjects from raiding. 2. Irish and English kings did some very brutal things to try to fight back against the vikings. In 1002 Aethelred the Unready ordered a massacre of all Danes in England, and although this couldn't be carried out completely, a whole lot of people were slaughtered, many of whom weren't even raiders. I think the Irish king Brian Boru carried out raids of his own and enslaved and killed Norse and Dane settlers in Ireland. 3. A few written sources suggest that Norse pagans engaged in human sacrifice on a few occasions. If true, this is important to remember when imagining how Christians viewed them. Then again, when Christianity was established in Norway, it was done at the tip of a sword.

@psykopanda11

5 жыл бұрын

It was partialy by the tip of a sword. Most slowly during many generations freely went over to christianity but lets not forget that both traditions blended together. In Sweden all our days are named after norse gods, We still celebrate purely pagan holidays like midsummer but we also celebrate christian easter. And christmas here is still named jul as it was in pagan times. We celebrate santa clause and his 8 raindeer which stems from the god oden and his 8 legged horse. We erect trees indoors which symbolises the world tree yggdrasil. We eat christmas ham that symbolises särimner in valhalla. And at the same time we sing christian songs. I love it all. Glorious are both ancestors. Christian and pre christian!

@philipcrouch

4 жыл бұрын

@@psykopanda11 The same applies in England and the English speaking world, although our names have a touch of Roman pagan nomenclature with the German pagan names: Sun day (Sunday), Moon day (Monday), Tiu's day, (Tuesday), Woden's Day (Wednesday), Thor's Day (Thursday), Freyr's or Frick's Day (Friday), Saturn's day (Saturday). There are still pre-Christian traditions preserved in Christianised forms, like Yuletide celebrations. I think it is sometimes overstated how much force was used in converting people: in that period, kings tended to set the agenda. If a king followed a religion, his people did too. Most people had little say over the matter. Kings may have converted after defeat in battle, but it is also true that some kings converted after their wives had convinced them too (no polygamy was attractive to women, who Christians tended to treat better), there was the cultural prestige of the Roman Empire, which one must remember continued into the 15th century AD and maintained a very high standard of civilization. There were a whole range of causes, and it is difficult to generalise about such things.

@truepremise2053

4 жыл бұрын

Human sacrifice was done with war criminals & extremely deviant people.

@Blokewood3

4 жыл бұрын

@@truepremise2053 I'm not entirely sure how common human sacrifice was for the Norse, but I don't think it was only criminals. At a sacrificial site at Trelleborg, there were a few skeletons of children from the age of 4-7 (Source: en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-viking-age/religion-magic-death-and-rituals/human-sacrifices/) And I think there is a Middle Eastern account of the vikings killing a slave girl during a funeral so she could serve her master in the afterlife.

@truepremise2053

4 жыл бұрын

@@Blokewood3& you're going to take 1 piece of dubious evidence & apply it to the entirety of a set of peoples. Brilliant thinking. These kids could have been victims of a raid of Christians that the children themselves were defending against. Seriously, there is an Anti-White Agenda made by people who promote a clearly BULLSHIT STORY about a virgin birth & God himself committing the sin of Adultery, contradicting his own law, making him a liar. Do you honestly trust any Liberal Scholar or Abrahamic of any era considering how disconnected from TRUTH they really are?

Professional historians need to publish; it's what they do. The revision of Vikings from 'marauders' to 'settlers' was a legitimate amendment in popular culture about ten years ago. At this stage however; the revision needs a revision. When my Irish settlers saw a boat full of rapists pull up on the beach, the fact that the Norsemen might hang on and do a bit of farming afterwards; can't have been much of a consolation.

@2adamast

6 жыл бұрын

Here they 'settled' (they took over the town) and then one day they threw themselves in the river and drowned as the marouders they always were

@brucetucker4847

6 жыл бұрын

I hate to break it to you, but if you're from Ireland those rapists are your ancestors just as much as the people they victimized are. We're all descended from people who did awful things.

@deceptivepanther

6 жыл бұрын

Er; if you made a considered effort to misrepresent my comment you couldn't have done a better job.

Also have read the book Matt is waving about. It is good to see him doing some more research. Go Matt!

Wow, that's a huge subject you tried to address! This is not conclusive (how can it be?) but so cleverly put I must say I bow to you! Actually, I'm interrsted in the same kind of subject about the Roman empire and how to assess what is slavery and gladiators. I try to separate what is moral judgment (which is easy and not useful, ut always don, even in the best histoical works) from assessing the moral implications of these phenomena, not only put in their context bt in a broader view (which is hard and seldom, if never, done, even by professionnal historians). In short, you are steps away ahead of me with the Vickings than I am with the Romans. It inspires me! Thank you!

At around 15:29 you state that there is nothing in the viking morality to prevent the raiders from slaughtering monks, that is, if their silver is desired. Interestingly in Egil's saga it is implied that to not confront someone from whom you are stealing is immoral; After being imprisoned by a land-owner in what is now Latvia, Egil and his band escape, steal the mans riches from his basement and flee; however, Egil says the following: "This our going is all wrong, and not warlike. We have stolen the goodman's property without his knowing thereof. Never ought that shame to be ours. Go we back to the house, and let him know what hath befallen." Egil then proceeds to burn down the mans house and slaughter all those who escape. This I find interesting; that to steal was dishonourable, however to both steal and slaughter was the correct way about it.

@scholagladiatoria

6 жыл бұрын

That's interesting, but also very contradictory, given that they stole stuff from graves :-)

@cole3650

6 жыл бұрын

scholagladiatoria Good point. I just found it interesting, as it shows a contrast to conventional christian morality; and another contextual reason as to why they did all sorts of nasty stuff. Although perhaps with those in graves already being dead, there is no reason to tell them that their things are being pillaged? ;)

Ultimately, the Scandinavian cultures were as varied as any other culture in history. Some would have been violent raiders, others more moral, ethical and reasonable in their lives. Also important to note is that standards of treatment of slaves were also varied across the board. As for today, many people are obsessed with modern technology but still not everyone is very impressed by it. Historians of the future will possibly look back at this era as a very cold-hearted and impersonalisitic era in general where face to face relationships were not as highly valued as they should have been and ethics were based mostly on machines doing most of our work for us. Allowing us to idealize practically everything in a fairy-land type of mindset. An era where relationships were mostly fake and shallow. It will likely be seen as a very hypocritical era in man's history, a sentimental era of hypocrite mental weaklings who used machines as slaves. Where most people today see it as an era of improvement and moral advancement. Historians of the future won't see it the way most people do today.

@buffoonustroglodytus4688

3 жыл бұрын

Nice

@scottarnold5737

3 жыл бұрын

@@buffoonustroglodytus4688 Thanks, I hope this viewpoint makes sense to people. This is pretty much how I see the Viking culture. To me the idea of saying "were the Vikings bad" is like saying "are humans bad? The answer is always the same, some are bad, some are good and others are a mix of both.

@eugenemartone7023

Жыл бұрын

@@scottarnold5737 bad by modern standards ofc. And it’s not like with technology where you can take it or leave it, if someone’s allowed (legally and culturally) to plant an axe in your head over some small dispute it doesn’t much matter what your preferences are.

@stefthorman8548

Жыл бұрын

@@eugenemartone7023 no, you aren't allowed to plant an axe in the head of your fellows legally, their were cases of it, like when US conscripts killed their overzealous officers in Vietnam, but they definitely weren't allowed to do so in their village

@eugenemartone7023

Жыл бұрын

@@stefthorman8548 well, not in your village, except if you challenge someone to a duel ofc, or they somehow shamed or hurt your relative or you were willing to pay the victims family and had some friends at court (ting) or they were outlawed for one of the numerous reasons one could be outlawed (like not showing for the aforementioned duel). So no, you couldn’t just plant an axe in someone’s head, but it wasn’t that far off. As long as you had a decent reason, like being insulted. Poison and fire etc was frowned upon, but killing in broad daylight wasn’t considered nearly as bad.

Hey Matt I really hope you see this but there is a particular fight scene in season 4 episode 2 of Vikings (episode is called "Kill the Queen") where the fighting, from what I can tell, is done very well and even uses stools and coats and whatnot. I would very much like to hear your opinion on it.

Great video! Very interesting points on the function of religion, which I quite agree with. Good treatment of the concept of morality. Kudos!

I think it's not just fascination for evil that draws us to the bad characters. Sure, they are often what drives the plot and they act, while the heroes only react and it's surely interesting to explore our dark sides as well. However, I think it's for one the ambiguity and for one the uncertainty. Antiheroes can react in ways heroes can't, which makes them unpredictable. Even better: when a bad guy helps the hero, because he has ulterior motives and he could backstab the hero anytime, or force him to make difficult decisions questioning his own morality. The thing that I can't really explain is ambiguity. That's where e.g. femme fatales come in. It's far more interesting when you seem to have a chance of dating a hot women, but actually you shouldn't, because she is in a relationship, or attracts trouble. Similarly, fallen heroes are interesting. People, where we can understand in their motivation, but who crossed the line and are now beyond redemption. It's like something broken. For a moment we still got hope, but we know that it's beyond repair.

the late alan rickman? your telling me he's dead? This is an incalcuable loss to human culture. He was definitely the best part of prince of thieves.

@janehollander1934

3 жыл бұрын

A little behind on "current" news?! Alan Rickman died back in 2016!! At the age of 69, of Pancreatic Cancer. Then again the death of David Bowie at 69 yrs. (due to Liver Cancer) on the 10th of 2016 may have "overshadowed" Alan Rickman's Passing: on the 14th Jan. 2016✌🏻😔.

@charlesparr1611

Жыл бұрын

Alan Rickman was a favourite actor of mine, and I miss him a great deal. Perhaps I can give you a small consolation. Rickman was in an almost unknow film called 'Snowcake', in which he stars opposite Sigourney Weaver. Both actors do some of their finest work in roles very unlike what we tend to associate them with.

Good video as always. But there were exceptions from this outsider concept. If we take for example Rorik of Dorestad: He remained a pagan for a long time and nevertheless was a liege man of the East-Frankish King and was loyal. So if it was kind of benefitting for them Viking Chieftains quite had the possibility to be a part of the social structure. There were multiple other examples like Haldan, Hemming, Aslak and Harald for example but I´m not certain about their convertion. For more information you can consult: From poachers to gamekeepers by Simon Coupland. It is generally a informative read and also traced the identity of the named persons quite well

In old Scandinavia there were no vikings. There were people there who went out to raid easy targets, and that is what they called "to go viking". When they came back home with their boats full of good loot, they werent "vikings" anymore. Those guys who came back went on living as they had been doing before, maybe richer than they used to be, but not exactly different.

Great, nuanced analysis! Is there a possibility that you could bring on guest experts to continue the conversation?

confirmed Matt is a pagan hence the ''thank the gods'' :P :D

Finally someone brings attention to this!

one of your best/most important videos.

9:10 I'm from Norway, and I had my genetics checked. I'm 99% Scandinavian and 1% British.

@GrimKnight12

4 жыл бұрын

Ok

@pjotrfalk9422

4 жыл бұрын

Cut a toe of.

@faramund9865

4 жыл бұрын

That’s not very much, could be any kind of more recent admixture than the Viking Age.

@ungeimpfterrusslandtroll7155

4 жыл бұрын

No, you are not. Nobody is 99% of anything anymore.

@trondsi

4 жыл бұрын

@@ungeimpfterrusslandtroll7155 "Anymore"? No doubt this is something you have studied in great detail ;)

Hi Matt! ^_-

@scholagladiatoria

6 жыл бұрын

Hiya

Hello sir i love this video seen you on knight errant. I've always loved anything to do with Norse. So much that I collect an table top army of futuristic Vikings in space armour, The Space Wolves!

That Christian fraternity that Matt is talking about towards the end of this video also meant a few other things. 1. When the chroniclers (often monks) wrote the history of what went on, they had no qualms about exaggeregating the transgressions made by the heathens. 2. Whe something like Ethelred the Unready's order to ethnically cleanse England from Scandinavians in the St Brice's Day massacres of Friday 13th of Nov 1002 happened, nobody in the Christian world took notice, or they even applauded him.

"Officially forbidden in the Quran" my ass. Mohamed himself, the "perfect human" according to Islam, at several points had the men of entire communities slaughtered , and took their women and children as slaves. You should try looking into these things a bit deeper than just accepting and repeating what your local Imam has to say.

@JustGrowingUp84

6 жыл бұрын

He wasn't the first or the last religious/political leader who didn't practice what he preached. His hypocrisy doesn't change the fact that in the official islamic policy many warfare abuses are forbidden. A favorite example of mine is Ayn Rand, who benefitted from social security payments and medicare benefits despite railing against them in her books (she did some funny mental acrobatics to justify this). A classic American example is in the Christian preachers who praise modesty while living a lavish life due to raising millions in donations.

@danyoutube7491

6 жыл бұрын

Matt neglects to point out that killing is simply forbidden altogether in the Bible, in the form of one of the Ten Commandments. I don't consider myself a Christian and don't know the Bible well enough to say that there aren't any contradictory statements elsewhere in the text, but Thou Shalt Not Kill is a pretty clear message.

@AaronMcLin

6 жыл бұрын

Trust me, by that standard, there are a LOT of contradictory statements elsewhere in the text. "You must not murder," is likely a more rational translation, where murder is defined as an unlawful killing.

@ryanhartigan1636

6 жыл бұрын

@Dan KZread You're both right and wrong there. The Commandments were the terms of YHWH's covenant with the Hebrews, and only applied to and amongst them. Thou Shalt Not Kill means Thou (the Hebrews) Shalt Not Kill (other Hebrews). Therefore, any Christian prohibition on murder comes from Christ's fulfillment of God's law in a new covenant that carried over, and expanded in application to all Mankind, some, but not all, aspects of the old law. So you're correct on it's use by Christianity, but it's original intention is not so clear as it may seem.

@Nikotheleepic

6 жыл бұрын

the same hypocrisy is in the torah and christian holy books fyi, with entire people's being slaughtered by holy figures so...

0:45 "justiflyiably" Did you just invent a new word or is it some kind of pilot slang?

@reeyees50

6 жыл бұрын

Nope, it's a real word.

@twirlipofthemists3201

6 жыл бұрын

Aviation terminology.

@tyynymyy7770

6 жыл бұрын

reeyees50+ "justifiably" is, but I'm afraid I haven't heard "justiflyiably" before.

What movie is that screen shot at 4:07 from? Does anyone know?

@spazthespasticcolonel3874

6 жыл бұрын

Hal337 It looks like Kirk Douglas, so I'm assuming it's, "The Vikings."

@mikegrossberg8624

4 жыл бұрын

@@spazthespasticcolonel3874 That's what it is, alright. HIstorical accuracy aside(very little), one of the greatest films ever made. Ernest Borgnine as Ragnar was a magnificent performance. The feast scene is how I've always pictured Valhalla

This is a refreshing take from Matt. I appreciate it.

Norway must be made to pay reparations - preferably in the form of oil.

@ThatIcelandicDude

6 жыл бұрын

Bluehawk2008 If we are going to pay repuration for every bad deed each nation has committed in the past. Britain is going to have a pretty bad time...

@1971irvin

6 жыл бұрын

Fuck you!

@brucetucker4847

6 жыл бұрын

Or herring.

@knutdergroe9757

5 жыл бұрын

They are going to send back the Irish women...

@thisguy976

5 жыл бұрын

@@knutdergroe9757 I fuck Norwegian women all the time, what are you talking about Irish for?

The Quran officially bans slavery? I think you may have this wrong. Look for example to Surah An-Nur (24): 31-33, which prescribes the treatment of slaves (and of women around slaves in 31). There’s certainly a call to treat slaves ethically, but the idea that Islam formally bans slaves in untenable both according to the Quran, the Hadith, and Islamic history.

@Pompelipom33

6 жыл бұрын

Exactly and Mohammed also owned slaves. I am sad to say that Scholagladiatora have got this totally wrong.

@scholagladiatoria

6 жыл бұрын

I didn't say that the Koran forbids slavery...

@scholagladiatoria

6 жыл бұрын

I find it funny that you just imagined me saying something that I absolutely did not say LOL

@Gjergji311

6 жыл бұрын

scholagladiatoria I misinterpreted what you were saying then, I take it back, no need to be defensive about it.

@brucetucker4847

6 жыл бұрын

I believe it bans enslavement of Muslims, but does not require freeing people who converted after being enslaved. Of course like every religion on the planet lots of the practitioners just ignored the rules they found inconvenient. I mean, "Thou shalt not kill."

Great video mate. it really is worth the effort to stop and think about how we view the rest of the world and history. We have a tendency to look at things through the lens of our own experience and understanding of our own upbringing. Thanks again mate. ;-}

Have you played Brytenwalda? Such fun :)

*WHOOOOOOSH* goes the point soaring over the heads of commenters

I always was for Robin hood not the oppressive sheriff. Vikings had many laws to go by. Norse law prevented stealing without the ones you stole from knowledge, you had to fight the the people, taking of things without a fight could be punishible by heavy fines or death and looked down on as a person without honor the same in murder cases. In Sweden women were the first in the world to have equal right's with men after killing many Danish Invaders while there men were off fighting Norwegian's. Women could divorce there husband's also and fight in battle take part in government affairs. Norway ruled western Scotland tell 1231, Isle of Man's succession to Scotland in 1266, Orkney and Shetland tell the 1500's. The Tynwald, the Manx Parliament in the Isle of Man, second oldest in the world, Norwegian Vikings started it in 979, Iceland in 930 is the oldest so we have the longest running law institute's in the world from them. Western Scotland was settled by Norwegian Vikings and famers, traders and fishermen without fighting. Studying all of the history and archeological evidence of the Isle of Lewis where my mom's people came from, food and trade diversity was greatly increased with the arrival of the Norwegian's. Trade with the Picts with the Norse goes back Roman times possibly before. The Roman's wrote about the Picts having a navy, which was probably a early Norse assistance because the Picts had no ships like that. Charlemagne beheaded 4500 Germanic men in a day in 783AD forced conversion one man in which he killed was a son of a jarl that was to marry a daughter of a Danish jarl, that greatly angered the Danes making them think that christians were the worse people that they had ever heard of. And being remembered ten years after in 793AD then Lindisfarne happened, because of Charlemagne's constant slaughter of pagans and the destruction of there religious sites. The Roman Catholic Church that controlled all of this was the second coming of Rome in christian form. There is bad in any group or scare tactics used. But in the mindset of a man of the old God's, death is not a bad thing but something to look forward to, fates spun by the Norn's. The Normans, Danish vikings desended people contributed more advancement's than Charlemagne ever did his family's time from 800 to 911. The Swedish desended Rus vikings and the Byzantine empire also. Vikings were traders, farmers, settler's, raiders, fishermen, explorers discovering America 500 years before Columbus were you think he learned of that from Norwegian maps. Great artist, craftsmen, metal workers, boat builders, makers or optainers of the best steel not seen in Europe tell centuries later. Japanese steel was not comparable tell the 1600's. Most Viking or scandanavians were christians by the 1100's. Our days of the week are named in honor of Norse gods. Sunday: For Sol, goddess of the sun, Sun's day Monday: for Mani, goddess of the moon, Mani's day Tuesday: For Tyr, god of war, Tyr's day Wednesday: For Odin, the Raven God, sometimes known as Woden, Woden's day Thursday: For Thor, god of strength and storms, Thor's day Friday: For Frigg, goddess of marriage, Frigg's day or Freyja day Saturday: Saturday did not come from the Vikings. It came from the ancient Romans - Saturn's day. Rome killed hundreds of thousands of British, the Brigantes and other tribes south of Hardrians wall ended up sucking Roman ass and helped them kill many more native people. The people in the north present day Scotland the Picts the Roman's called them fought Rome for three hundred years never giving up. Then the Angles, Saxons and Jutes come over killing and taking with little resistance from theses same tribes that sold there people out before except the Welsh, Rome was far worse than Vikings, Caesar said he killed a million in Gaul women and children to. Everywhere Rome done this.

@arandomguy9

6 жыл бұрын

Fellow Scandinavian from Iceland here Glad to see I'm not the only one debunking some of the moralist none sense in this video kzread.info/dash/bejne/hWyftM-ilMvShKg.html I linked this video into a comment i posted, but I'll post it here since its just perfect and explains everything far better then i can.

@JustFlemishMe

5 жыл бұрын

'Our days of the week are named in honor of Norse gods.' First example is clearly Roman; 'Sol' is even literally Latin for 'sun'. Hm, wonder what people would refer to the sun deity as the Latin word for 'sun'. Let's make this clear here, I am NOT defending Charlemagne's massacres and certainly not Rome, which I don't even particularly like. But it's very important to remember Rome did spread some things we would consider the bedrock of Western civilisation: urban life, later Christianity, Roman law; and it set a template for politics for basically the rest of history, the Roman Republic serving as an example even for the United States today. Charlemagne had quite a bit to do with the Carolingian Renaissance. Culture prospered under both of them. I'm sorry, but especially Rome is hard to contend with in terms of legacy, and the Vikings, in Europe at least, barely hold a candle to Charlemagne. That doesn't make Charlemagne a good person, and if Vikings had shaped the modern world it would not have made them good people. Just calling it out here. Honestly, while I don't claim to be an expert, it's hard to say that Vikings changed culture massively. Sure, they would've had some influence, but it seems like they were integrated into the Christian world much like the Goths in the Roman Empire. They did leave more of a mark in the East, and I have to give them credit for the one time when they bailed out the Byzantines, which was a good job. They were also crucial in the Varangian guard. And reaching as far as the Islamic world from Scandinavia in the Early Middle Ages is impressive. But what they mostly did was further destabilize Western Europe and steal its resources, and its cultural contributions don't match 200 years of that in the slightest. Well, not until a certain linguistics professor read up on Norse mythology. Eventually, Christian Europe swallowed the Vikings, and while I'm sure it was changed a bit by it, it wasn't then defined by the Viking past. Not as much as by Rome and Charlemagne at least. Yes, Harald Hardraada and William the Conqueror were both of Viking descent, Harald Hardraada being basically the last Viking. The mark they left on history is undeniable, and without William in particular the world would have fared much differently. However, I feel like looking at William is a bit stretching it. Sure, he had Viking blood. Is that kinda cool? Yeah. Is that what won him the crown? No. Did he afterwards do more Viking-like stuff in England? Eh, some perhaps, but he was mostly just a new ruler. A Christian monarch like many others. Can we even call him a Viking at that point? Is his long-lasting legacy to be considered Viking legacy? Because if you go back that far, it becomes very hard to even imagine where you'll end up. To conclude this rambling on a more lucid note: Vikings are often either idealized or ridiculed as mere barbarians. Samurai and to some extent Knights suffer from this too. None of these three groups deserve to be free of criticism, and none of them deserve to be demonized. Personally, I fully believe the Vikings were part of a far greater culture and far greater warriors than you'd believe from Christian chroniclers. But I also don't believe in hailing them as heroes. They were still brutal raiders. They murdered children withot a second thought, took slaves (which the Church opposed) and may well have had no qualms brutally raping a 10-year-old girl. Glorifying them is nonsensical, even if we can admire certain parts of their history and culture, like the old belief in the Aesir or their aid to Byzantium. But the wonders don't excuse the horrors.

@JustFlemishMe

5 жыл бұрын

@Adam Emanuelsson Let's start with your first remark and go over history. Briefly; history is an awful lot of ground to cover and I don't know a tenth of it, being generous to myself. Bronze Age Kingdoms worked with elite charioteer castes for big pitched battles. Pitched battles don't usually involve child murder. It did occur, of course, as it did in Troy; at the very least Greeks in the early Classical period believed the Mycenaeans would do that or it just happened if you took a city. But what would actually happen for much of ancient history is you'd win a giant pitched battle and the cities would just defect to you - the Middle East throughout Ancient times, Sicily in the First Punic War, southern Italy and Spain in the Second, Greece... Speaking of Greece! Classical warfare between Greek city states was usually agreeing a time and place, showing up with an army and fighting a single battle. Again, I'm not saying it didn't happen, but unlike with the vikings, it wasn't standard procedure. Either you just wanted a (more) favourable treaty or you wanted to actually conquer territory. Former case: just win a battle and then sue for peace. Latter case: maybe it's not a good idea to consistently cause demographic disasters to the latest addition to your Empire. Just, you know, maybe. And that's not even mentioning the surprisingly sophisticated Hindu code of war, or warfare in the tribes that inhabited what would later be the Zulu Empire, or... more modern armies. No Christian army ever gave a shit about what the Church opposed? In sieges, holidays were often a bit of a break. And the Church could excommunicate you, which would be an open invitation to everyone under your command to revolt. The faith was vastly more important than it was in ancient times or after the Enlightenment and the Church wielded significant political power. And while I'm aware I'm a nitpicky asshole, 'no... ever' is usually false. Not always, but here? Definitely. The Crusades were literally called by the Papacy, the formal leader being a Bishop (Adhemar). I think there was a battle in the Hundred Years War where the French King decided to postpone an attack after being reminded by clergymen the next day was Sunday. Of course by Monday the English had their defences ready and butchered the French. So the French King obliged the Church and lost victory over it.

Hi Matt, Tarik here. About your question on Irish blood in Scandinavia, Research on DNA in Icelanders has shown that the vikings from Norway had taken women from Scotland and Ireland and then settled Iceland. Keep up the good work and looking forward to seeing you soon :)

@qzxerty

6 жыл бұрын

Oh and I should mention my source. This was from an exhibit at the Archaeological museum of Reykjavik

'A Brief History of the Vikings'- Clements is well worth a read, as is his 'A Brief History of the Samurai' if you like Japan.

Great video Matt! I find many people have trouble parsing the idea that morality isn't necessarily relative. You did a good job not falling into moral relativism, and adding context to the history of Vikings (and people in general).

Was Lindisfarne a sword-free zone?

Good video Mr Easton!

Interesting discussion :)

It's tribalism. Cultures differed so much more back then because there was far less contact and language barriers were likely greater too. Most of these people would not have viewed other people that did not speak their language or share their culture as people really at all. You see it in historical sources when they refer to other people groups as savages etc. Even up until recently in PNG tribes would consider anyone who doesn't speak their language as food. So Vikings would have thought those monk like animals almost.

@TheShiz9797

6 жыл бұрын

teatowel11 You don't even have to go back through history to see that mindset. It is still around today just not as common.

@psykopanda11

5 жыл бұрын

Tribalism is good. The loss of tribalism and cultural and ethnic identity is what has made europe weaken and unless it returns to normal soon we are to be quickly replaced by others who have not experienced this loss.

Regarding 21:00 I think that the closest thing you can get to the dangerous charm of a viking raider in the modern world is probably within the realms of organised crime such the drug cartels run by pablo escobar

@lachirtel1

6 жыл бұрын

Or you could say western mercenaries in the global south.

Very good video Matt. Also people tend to forget when they explain away such people as products of their times, while true it is also true that there were many people with opportunity to be cruel that weren't. That there were decent, charitable folks. I would also like to add on a similar note as someone who has studied anthropology that subjugation and slavery is not universal. I know many minorities, particularly of India and Malaya who didn't have such practices towards others, or themselves. My point being there are always people who have an inkling cruelty is wrong. There where Romans who wouldn't go to the coliseum, there were Aztecs who wanted human sacrifice ended. The existence of evil is no excuse to condone it.

You should do a video on the crusades

Did you just say there isn’t anything in the Bible about not killing innocent people? Hmm. Not a Christian, but I would argue that.

@johnrockwell5834

4 жыл бұрын

What do you mean?

@johnrico2527

4 жыл бұрын

I'm no longer a christian; but, have read the Bible from cover to cover. Matt is most certainly wrong. Right off the top of my head--Thou shalt not murder.....

@johnrockwell5834

4 жыл бұрын

Killing in peacetime as in war is the definition of murder given in the bible(1 Kings 2:5). Only enemy combatants and threats from enemy nation is to be killed. Or Judicial killing in accordance with Court's decision.

Calling all norsemen "vikings" is like calling all british and dutch "pirates"

@Necromantia_ad_Immortuos

3 жыл бұрын

I believe he’s talking about the Vikings specifically though. He’s not talking about all Scandinavians at the time

@darkscholar625

3 жыл бұрын

The difference is that English people in the past and today did not take pride in the pirates. They knew they were evil. And they feared them. And they were rightfully eradicated.

@mk3ferret

3 жыл бұрын

@@darkscholar625 we have politicians basically pirates "Take what you want, give nothing back"

It's been a while since I heard the phrase "thin on the ground".

15:18 I did this alot in Kingdom Come Deliverance

Trust a brit to side with the villain in every story... :P

zürihegel ''We tortured some folks...'' US warlord, early 21st century

Your videos are always fascinating. It would be very interesting if you covered in depth the weapon technology, martial arts, and tactics and strategies of the various peoples of 5th Century Britain. In particular the invading Germanic Angles, Saxons and Jutes who would become the progenitors of the English population versus the Romanised Pretani (Britons or British Celts), the non-Romanised British Celts in Northern Britain, and the Goidelic (Irish Celts) that were raiding and forming colonies on Britains West coast. I am well read in the history of the period, but I have seen very little in historical works or art that addressed the military technologies, practices or tactics of the period. Did the Romanised Britons have a technological advantage as a result of centuries of Roman colonisation, and if so, why did this not avail them in defending their territories from the Germanic invaders? Why were many of the Celtic kingdoms of Northern Britain able to withstand, and in some cases, ultimately survive this invasion. What innovations did the Angles, Saxons and Jutes bring with them from the continent that allowed their invasion to become so successful?

2:33 what a goofy spear! Did they get that from a kids costume shop or a Loony Toons episode?

According to a french specialist of the viking era, the "vikings" really have to be broken up between their three kingdoms of origin (i.e. Norway, Sweden, Denmark). He argues that while Norway, because of its geography, "produced" mostly raider bands of vikings (so your Lindisfarne probably), the Danes had a strategic mindset in how they conducted raids, which were therefore more focused and impressive. In that context (see what I did there), he argues the murdering/pillaging was at least in some part a means of discouraging the Franks from mounting counter-offensives. Psychological warfare really. Indeed, whenever the Franks actually figured out their asses from their elbows, they were entirely capable of gathering up more numerous, trained and armoured forces in the field. That doesn't impact anything of the morals of course, but at least from a utilitarian point of view, it had "positive" aspects

At last, someone tells it like it is. I've always been sick of the way Vikings are glorified and thought of as 'cool'. Raping and murdering is never cool, have some respect for the poor people that died and suffered. And that goes for all people throughout history.

@tomchch

4 жыл бұрын

I think you missed his point completely

I have read that often times Scandinavians actually did not rape like everyone says. In the sagas, generally women were left unharmed and it was only men who the raiders subjected to violence.

@SolarDragon007

5 жыл бұрын

Hanaar Steelhand Citation?

@amirysyafy4801

4 жыл бұрын

Well that's because they want to bang the women.

What's with "Gdańsk (Gdynia)" on the map shown at 1:15 (kzread.info/dash/bejne/hXqIm6-Ck6aze9I.htmlm15s)? There are two different cities; well, actually Gdynia at that time was a fishing village, IIRC.

@MrWheelman82

6 жыл бұрын

There is more wrong with that map than that. But I think it's meant that the cruise stops in the port of Gdynia.

VICTORY OR VALHALLA!

The Norse were hardly any worse than the supposedly civilised Christians based on the reports of how Charlemagne and his successors brought "the love of Christ" to places like Saxony, Prussia, the Basque Country, Avaria, and Lithuania. For nearly any atrocity the Norse or other pagans did; the Christians did on a significantly larger scale for the simple reason that they were more numerous and had much more organised societies to carry out the violence.

@PJDAltamirus0425

6 жыл бұрын

Yeah, but the Vikings didn't contribute as much to the advancement of society either. Charlemange did allot to advance literacy and learning along with being a ruthless conqueror.

@JustGrowingUp84

6 жыл бұрын

True - but i would like to point out that this only means that both were bad. The Christians, over all, being worse in relation to the viking raiders (which is an oxymoron, but still) when it comes to warfare doesn't make the vikings "good". They're both bad - over all. Of course, since most sources about the vikings we have are Christian, they tend to get demonized - but that's basic PR that's used even today...

@JustGrowingUp84

6 жыл бұрын

+Caramel Johnson Pretty much, yeah. I suspect many modern people simply don't want to deal with the fact that some (many? most?) of their ancestors were... pretty damn horrible. Remember that for most of the human history, in most of the world, slavery, in some form, was normal and legal. Many civilizations build their empires through abusive exploitation of other people - and to some degree this is still done today. (yeah, I know Matt mentioned this, but it's an example dear to me, especially since it's still usable today). Now, *individual* people from those civilizations might have been cruel or kind, peaceful or warmongering, greedy or modest, fair or unjust, etc., etc. But the societies of those civilizations, taken as a whole, were... pretty damn horrible.

@wendel5868

6 жыл бұрын

Read more, bro.

@jsticks7381

6 жыл бұрын

laughable argument, Charlemagne brought civilization and truth while raiders had only destruction before they themselves were converted

Your description at the end about how Vikings were "out of the norm" just made me think of the US today.

I found this hugely interesting, and I think you were right to put Vikings into their historical context. In fact, I think a very small percentage of Scandinavians 'went viking': the term was both a verb and a noun. My mother's maiden name was Garth, and this may be Old Norse in origin. Certainly, the part of NW rural England where her family definitely come from is littered with Norse archaeology and place names - but it's frustrating that there is scant documentary evidence out there. What seems to be true is that in 902 AD, warring Irish chieftains in Dublin united, for a time, and routed the Norsemen, who were then forced to search for a new home. They eventually settled on the Wirral Peninsula and spread somewhat south. In fact, they established a Viking mini-state up there, independently of Norway. Later, when William the Conqueror harried the North ... well, it wasn't much better for local people.

I have it on good authority that we should judge all past people by modern morality and thus knock down statues and remove the names of people from parks, streets, and buildings if they did anything that modern people consider wrong.

@TheShiz9797

6 жыл бұрын

teddy boragina Why do you consider it evil to remove the statues of evil people?