The Vikings had an economy based on chattel slavery fed by overseas raiding.
One of the best descriptions we have of a Viking burial comes from an Arab trader traveling among the Kievan Rus who is considered very reliable, where he describes the gangrape and murder/sacrifice of an enslaved woman before the burial ship is burned.
Other than that, the ending of the ritual is actually pretty funny. If you’re interested in reading it for yourself look up Ibn Fadlan’s journals.
The Vikings were more than that, in much the same way the Romans were more than their conquests or the Mongols more than a butchering horde, but there’s a reason they’re remembered for pillaging and murder and not trading. Mostly because the traders were the pillagers and murderers the moment they thought they could get away with it.
Viking revisionism to fit your own bias is not just a sin of the fascist.
When you said the depictions of the Vikings are innaccurate in response to someone saying the Vikings ruined their own image thanks to all the slaving and conquering.
I’m sorry, I assumed you remembered the context of your own argument.
But, sure, they mostly didn’t have horned helmets, good point or whatever you think you were defending about them.
Have any other slaver cultures you want to defend? Think the Portuguese and Spanish got a bad rap in the age of sail because the British were bad too?
They are largely inaccurate. I offered no specificity so arguing I’m wrong there would be stupid.
I’m sorry you assumed my position without any context or reason then deigned to compare me to fascists.
That’s certainly one reason.
Nope, you apparently do with your whitewashing of slavery in Briton though hilarious you mention the age of sail where the English made their money… Trading slaves you presumptuous douche.
Yeah, that was the point, that the Britons having their own problems is irrelevant to the specific criticism of Vikings and how they traumatized all of their neighbors for a thousand years, just as the English being evil colonizers doesn’t stop the Portuguese and Spanish from also being evil colonizers.
And I didn’t compare you to fascists. I said they’re not the only ones guilty of revisionist history.
It’s part of the inaccuracies yes, that is exactly the point.
You act like the britons weren’t slave trading in Dublin and raiding their neighbors and oh yeah the thousand years of slave trading that followed.
The Viking aren’t uniquely violent in their area nor are they unique in their violence when compared to global civilizations at the time. You imply the britons weren’t raiding, pillaging, raping and slave trading each other which they absolutely were.
Similarly let’s remember there’s a huge debate about if all Norse were Viking or Vikings happened to be largely Norse given that recovered raids turn up English and Arab dudes dressed like Vikings.
The general consensus from what I’m aware of is that Viking is as good a term as any for a relatively well understood historical culture group because Germanics is too broad, Norse too specific, and Scandinavian either includes or excludes Sami and Finns unfairly depending on how you look at it.
The Vikings had an economy based on chattel slavery fed by overseas raiding.
One of the best descriptions we have of a Viking burial comes from an Arab trader traveling among the Kievan Rus who is considered very reliable, where he describes the gangrape and murder/sacrifice of an enslaved woman before the burial ship is burned.
Other than that, the ending of the ritual is actually pretty funny. If you’re interested in reading it for yourself look up Ibn Fadlan’s journals.
The Vikings were more than that, in much the same way the Romans were more than their conquests or the Mongols more than a butchering horde, but there’s a reason they’re remembered for pillaging and murder and not trading. Mostly because the traders were the pillagers and murderers the moment they thought they could get away with it.
Viking revisionism to fit your own bias is not just a sin of the fascist.
You’ve not read about the britons have you huh?
What exactly did I revise dipshit?
What about the Britons do you think disproves anything I’ve said?
Way to dodge, you claim revisionist history. What exactly did I revise.
When you said the depictions of the Vikings are innaccurate in response to someone saying the Vikings ruined their own image thanks to all the slaving and conquering.
I’m sorry, I assumed you remembered the context of your own argument.
But, sure, they mostly didn’t have horned helmets, good point or whatever you think you were defending about them.
Have any other slaver cultures you want to defend? Think the Portuguese and Spanish got a bad rap in the age of sail because the British were bad too?
They are largely inaccurate. I offered no specificity so arguing I’m wrong there would be stupid.
I’m sorry you assumed my position without any context or reason then deigned to compare me to fascists.
That’s certainly one reason.
Nope, you apparently do with your whitewashing of slavery in Briton though hilarious you mention the age of sail where the English made their money… Trading slaves you presumptuous douche.
Yeah, that was the point, that the Britons having their own problems is irrelevant to the specific criticism of Vikings and how they traumatized all of their neighbors for a thousand years, just as the English being evil colonizers doesn’t stop the Portuguese and Spanish from also being evil colonizers.
And I didn’t compare you to fascists. I said they’re not the only ones guilty of revisionist history.
It’s part of the inaccuracies yes, that is exactly the point.
You act like the britons weren’t slave trading in Dublin and raiding their neighbors and oh yeah the thousand years of slave trading that followed.
The Viking aren’t uniquely violent in their area nor are they unique in their violence when compared to global civilizations at the time. You imply the britons weren’t raiding, pillaging, raping and slave trading each other which they absolutely were.
Similarly let’s remember there’s a huge debate about if all Norse were Viking or Vikings happened to be largely Norse given that recovered raids turn up English and Arab dudes dressed like Vikings.
The general consensus from what I’m aware of is that Viking is as good a term as any for a relatively well understood historical culture group because Germanics is too broad, Norse too specific, and Scandinavian either includes or excludes Sami and Finns unfairly depending on how you look at it.