Vikings : Rollo - Am I the only one???

Am I the only one who CRINGES everytime Rollo & Co. wins a battle?

I can't stand his betrayal. KILL HIM OFF ALREADY.

And then again I used to like Rollo/Clive Standen But why oh why did they write this awful storyline about him?

He either needs to be killed off - or return to the Vikings.

*grrrrrrrrrr*

Suggesting a reading and memorizing history book

Rollo married Gisla and became the 1st duke of Normandy

the writing was on the wall for all who have etes to see

when a guy named Rollo goes to raid in France and his opponent is called Gisla, it is a bit silly yo expect him to go back vikings

this is his future

live with it

vikings won some lost some

overall rollo as endgames go won and thus vikings won

because it is a viking who save paris

in case you have missed it

The middle initial is S standing for Sarcasm.

Morangles29 : "Suggesting a reading and memorizing history book "

Yeah except, if I'm not mistaken, it's the Siege of Paris of 885 and that Rollo (Hrolf; Rollon in French) was part of the Vikings ATTACKING and besieging Paris, NOT among the defenders of Paris, the Vikings were repelled by the Parisians themselves and because of the strong will of the Count of Paris Odo (Eudes in French, who will become King of France from 888 to 898) NOT because of the help of any vikings

Rollo became ruler of Normandy in 911 - that's about 25-26 yrs later, i.e. one quarter of century later.

But the general idea is the same, in France Rollo is a hero. He did not go back to the Vikings after he made his treaty.

What???

Look at the post I'm responding to and you'd probably understand what I mean. Clearly the show is not following years and specific battles to the letter. The battles of Paris we've seen are a combination of different ones. Last season Rollo took part on the Viking side, this season the opposite. So it's still true to the spirit of the story, if not to the letter. So Morangles is right, that's why he's considered a hero in France.

And everything above and below this is why this show would have made out to be a much better full fledged "Fantasy" show instead of "based on historical facts" They have to stick to the main points outlined in what the History books read.

Off topic but is the picture in your avatar the portrait of Charlotte du Val d'Ognes painted by Marie Denise Villers?

"Nothing is more ill bred than trying to steal the affections of someone else's dog."

You're replying with a history lesson to this question?? Names, years and areas are at at great distance not taken into account.
In fact, Normandy is named after Rollo in a way. Normandy comes of "Normans", which was the Danish vikings.

Is the actual history lesson over?

What I desire, that should be noted, is that the entire series circles around the Danish vikings. Not the Swedish, neither the Norwegians

Normannia, Normaundia

What I know is that from roughly 886 to 911 there was de facto a Danelaw in Frankia reaching the borders of Beauvais including Pontoise.

It so happens that I know very well the geography of the area (my great gdparents were from this area) and I find it curious that while it is acknowledged by historians (and it was French ones publications who led me to get this information) main stream history education for school children pushes it under the carpet under the general label 'complicated Late Carolingians politics' an expression which acts like sun rays on vampires on any French person. Nightmare does not quite carry it, if you get my drift.

As it stands I have yet to find a map showing the extension of said Dane Law: for example I know Hastein was Count of Chartres but what did this title mean as territory is vague. Chartres was not yet the city lost in the middle of corn fields we know it of today.

I would certainly buy any book able to give me these answers because it would give important contrasting answers to other questions regarding these famous complicated politics.

Another important and disregarded - wrongly - element of your post is about the Danish kings.

Did you know that French kings have a rather good idea of the genealogy of Spain, Austria, England for example even Germany but Poland, Denmark etc are not in the curriculum when they should as part of the history of the EU!

I can understand why a 60ys old like me would be clueless as I belong to the archaeological strata of the European Union, but kids like my son not to mention the next generation should be given more information.

I shall not enter in polemics with you as why no Norway or Sweden because honestly I do not know why you would say so and what are your arguments. What I know as a French person is that we call 'Danes' in the context of the Viking era is the synonym of Vikings or Norse Men. Ogier of the Charlemagne tale is a Dane not a Swede.
We have no name for Swede or Norwegian warriors for example but this elusive clue which is 'les Danois'

If you would give us a crash course as to make head and tail of Denmark kings and queens: I will be thankful.

The middle initial is S standing for Sarcasm.

I'm very interested in your post, but frankly I don't understand half of it.

You keep saying that right & wrong about the same things? (And I don't mean as in "You are right, but also wrong").
Normandy, or in this case "Normannia" would come from "Norman".

---

Another important and disregarded - wrongly - element of your post is about the Danish kings.

Did you know that French kings have a rather good idea of the genealogy of Spain, Austria, England for example even Germany but Poland, Denmark etc are not in the curriculum when they should as part of the history of the EU!

---

No, I didn't know that the French kings had a good idea of this, but that's nice. Useful!
Although, Please makes sense of this to me. Clearly stating that I'm wrong, but also stating that you have no idea??

---

I shall not enter in polemics with you as why no Norway or Sweden because honestly I do not know why you would say so and what are your arguments

---

There I'm wrong.

But

---

What I know as a French person is that we call 'Danes' in the context of the Viking era is the synonym of Vikings or Norse Men. Ogier of the Charlemagne tale is a Dane not a Swede.
We have no name for Swede or Norwegian warriors for example but this elusive clue which is 'les Danois'

---

Here; Didn't you just prove my point?

I never intend, going into polemics :)
Clearly you have some questions or arguments, and I'll try to answer them within the best of my capability.

Sorry appologies, I meant French people as in French pupils/school children

and my grumble about the French educationnal system who seems to be skewed ignoring the people of Scandinavia who about disappear from the rader after the viking age but for some name individials and thois is very scarce and scanty and I feel unfair.

Normandy comes from North Men we agree but my nuance is
is it North Man or North Mund, Mund as in mundus: the acrual power over something

the power held by the Norse men over this bit of land whereas the other version is just the north men

I think it would be more logical to have the sequence the land where the norse me have power but this is just semantics.

And I was not debating, I was agreeing: the latin chronicles are quite clear they names the danes as the perpetrators

so you see It was not a post against
it was a post about nuances

The middle initial is S standing for Sarcasm.

Well, that's okay.
In all honesty, chrstianity made us weak, did it not? After we became chrstians, what was there to write or talk about? Then we were just christians too, like everyone else. It made us forgettable. We were still a small country, thin populated.
Instead of norsemen or vikings back earlier that was spoken of, as something different, now we were christians, the same as you guys, living in the north. After this, I don't believe that there would be that much to write about.

A book can only hold a certain amount of pages ;)

You speak to someone who had to learn the genealogy of the Julii and the motley crew of ensuing emperors then some kings of Spain and the kings of England; also the Romanov lineage for some reason and bits and parts of Austrian monarchy.

Frankly a course about a neutral overview of the at the time 6 or 9 people of the EU or Common market as it was known at the time would have been nice

On the other hand, I let you imagine 6 years old being taught by nuns about the rather colourful life of Louis XIV and his special lady-friends.
- they were naughty
- they gave for the most part unwise advice
- they spent money foolishly
- (tragic tone) they are the cause for the French Revolution
- (minions background noise of ooooohhh!)
then Napoleon had no choice but betray the Republic to save our country
- (minions background noise of aaaaahhh!)

This is because there is a vast abyss being loyalty to a stupid leader and the all important duty due to one's country. Unless you leave it in a straight-forward manner.



The middle initial is S standing for Sarcasm.

---

In all honesty, Christianity made us weak, did it not?

---

If you consider changing from marauding slavers and rapists and murderers, to decent people who stayed home and built a culture that the whole world admires to be weak, I find that a very strange viewpoint indeed. Scandinavia is a model for the world to follow now. I will remind you that Germany under Hitler has generated a lot of writing, as has Islamic extremism, but just because something is written about a lot doesn't mean it's something to be proud of.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

I consider, that the only religion, that has ever treated men & women somewhat equally, is Norse Mythology. Please, do prove me wrong.
Were most people at the north not still farmers? Yes, they were.

---

If you consider changing from marauding slavers and rapists and murderers, to decent people who stayed home and built a culture that the whole world admires to be weak, I find that a very strange viewpoint indeed. Scandinavia is a model for the world to follow now.

---

What country did not do this? In which places were there not war anyway?
In which places did this not occur?

---

---

If you consider changing from marauding slavers and rapists and murderers, to decent people who stayed home and built a culture that the whole world admires to be weak, I find that a very strange viewpoint indeed. Scandinavia is a model for the world to follow now.

---

What country did not do this? In which places were there not war anyway?

---

Oh, please. If you're going to contend that the Vikings were not a unique phenomenon in that they went out consistently year after year, attacking and robbing and raping and killing and then going home for the winter, there's no point in even trying to have a discussion with you. Can you name another society that was peaceful in the winter months and during the summer came boiling out to attack other countries unprovoked, just out of pure blood lust and greed? Didn't think so. As for your contention that Norse mythology is the only religion that ever treated men and women somewhat equally, all I can say is, if you believe that, you don't know much about religion. You definitely don't know anything about Christianity.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

---

It was a very most unique phenomenon.
But does it actually make that much of a difference? Up here in the north, we where so thin populated, that a conventional war was not possible. It was hit, take & run.
The question that matters, in this context is, taking into mind, that the below was mostly conventional wars;

What country did not do this? In which places did this not occur? In which places were there not war anyway?

---

This makes no sense. You admit the Viking phenomenon was unique, and then you imply that all countries were going out pirating like the Vikings. I did ask you to name another country that did what the Vikings did. Repeating your questions does not name another country. Which is okay, because although other countries warred with each other, there are no other countries that made piracy a matter of course and an accepted way to live.

---

Ahh, I knew you'd say that! I don't know much. I'm an atheist to the bottom of my heart. But I'm no hater. What other choose to believe in, is of course their free choice, and I don't care.
But what I do know is, that it's not about what it was supposed to be, or what the bible says. It's how things turned out. Were there any equal rights for men & women at any level?

---

Never said you were a hater. Just said you don't know much about religion, and you don't. Jesus taught equality, and enforced it, like when he got rid of the men who wanted to stone the woman taken in adultery. He saved her life and sent her on her way. He also had many women as disciples, and showed himself first to a woman when He rose from the dead. As to equal rights for men and women, that hasn't been achieved anywhere by anyone, including atheists, although the Navajo come close. I'm guessing you don't know about their religion either but if you had read the Din Bahane you would know it's an article of faith that men and women are equal.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

Damn. Had another tab on this page, said it was only 16 sec ago, thought I double posted before, so I deleted it.. If you have a tab, where it's still visible, feel free to post it in quote. (Currently have 159 tabs open, it happens.)

---

This makes no sense. You admit the Viking phenomenon was unique, and then you imply that all countries were going out pirating like the Vikings. I did ask you to name another country that did what the Vikings did. Repeating your questions does not name another country. Which is okay, because although other countries warred with each other, there are no other countries that made piracy a matter of course and an accepted way to live.

---

I never implied this. I never said, that any other nations acted like the vikings. What I did say, is that almost any other nation (rarely smaller than Denmark), kept warmongering against each other, for the exact same thing;
Property, land & money.
The point is, that when you don't have a the resources large enough to form an actual army (like England or France), you can't go into a conventional war.
But you still want the same thing; Property, land & money.

Outnumbered and poorly equipped vikings goes into another country.
Countries armed with superior equipment and numbers goes into war against each other.
Purpose; Property, land & money.

I said my self, that I don't know much about religion.
I know you never said I was a hater, I just wrote I wasn't. It's often appropriate or even needed.

You see me as religious, because I'm an atheist. I'm not. I don't believe in any god or any supernatural power. I believe in science.

---

when He rose from the dead.

---

I mentioned earlier, that I don't care what religion people believe in, and I meant that, but when people do bring it to my face, like this with some story, I'm out :)

---

What I did say, is that almost any other nation (rarely smaller than Denmark), kept warmongering against each other, for the exact same thing;
Property, land & money.
The point is, that when you don't have a the resources large enough to form an actual army (like England or France), you can't go into a conventional war.
But you still want the same thing; Property, land & money.

---

This still makes no sense. England, France, other countries, they went to war because they felt they were provoked. They didn't just go to war and invade each other's countries only to steal and kill. Even most of the Scandinavians didn't do that. It was only the Vikings, a very small segment of the population, that decided to go pirating. The Vikings were criminal thugs who made their living by home invasion. They weren't a country, they weren't even the majority of the population in any country, they had no reason other than pure greed and blood lust to invade Europe. You're equating them with legitimate countries and governments, and there is no equivalence here. I'm not saying every war was justified, or that the motivation for a lot of wars wasn't to get something more than what they had, but you can't equate two countries going to war with each other with thugs pouring down from the North and attacking everywhere.

---

You see me as religious, because I'm an atheist. I'm not. I don't believe in any god or any supernatural power. I believe in science.

---

I didn't say I see you as religious. Those are your words. I said you don't know anything about religion, and you don't. You admit it yourself.

---

---

when He rose from the dead.

---

I mentioned earlier, that I don't care what religion people believe in, and I meant that, but when people do bring it to my face, like this with some story, I'm out :)

---

You're the one who brought up Christianity first, in this post.

---

by theisrosenberg 11 hours ago (Sun Jun 12 2016 08:18:30) Flag | Reply |
IMDb member since April 2011
Post Edited: Sun Jun 12 2016 08:19:10
Well, that's okay.
In all honesty, chrstianity made us weak, did it not? After we became chrstians, what was there to write or talk about? Then we were just christians too, like everyone else.

---

You can't say I'm bringing Christianity to your face when you're the one who brought Christianity into the discussion. Don't want to hear about Christianity, don't bring it up in the first place.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

I think the picture is a lot more blurry than what you say. The annals of Frankia suggest more pro active involvement of Dane leadership in the raids.

BTW, I know that Christian kings of the Heptarchy went to war during the winter months now we are here in the 7th, 8thC

I cannot comment on Frankia which was more united under Charles Martel and was fighting a full scale invasion from the Moors.

I seem to remember Charlemagne going to war also regularly each year as clockwork

I do not think Christianity made us weak, it just gave us a veneer of having at least one thing in common

for the rest Man is a Wolf to another Man.

The middle initial is S standing for Sarcasm.

---

You can't say I'm bringing Christianity to your face when you're the one who brought Christianity into the discussion. Don't want to hear about Christianity, don't bring it up in the first place.

---

It's not about hearing about Chrstianity. I do understand what you mean, though! For sure.

How can I describe it? I learned about Christianity in school.
We did see and, it went around in the class room, because that's what Christianity is made and build on. Read the name of a few chapters, but after this, it was gone again.
Our books always took a much more neutral point of view.

I wanna be clear, that our books didn't question, that Jesus actually existed! That is a fact, and I believe that too. It ends there, though, because it is also by fact not possible to raise from total death.

That is what you're doing. That is the difference.

Religion is an important thing in this world, and that's why we learned about it. Not to make us believe. Just learning a bit about what a religion actually is, and a bit about a particular religion (Christianity took most of the time (guessing 70%), but 45 min. a week, with no homework on this, don't cover a whole lot.)

I hope you can understand that.

I understand what you're saying. I just totally disagree with what you are saying. And once again, I will say that if you don't want to engage in a discussion about Christianity, don't bring it up. You're the one who brought Christianity into the conversation, saying that Christianity made Scandinavia weak. Why did you make that statement if you didn't want to talk about Christianity? Why do you continue to talk about it if you don't want to hear about it?

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

---

Why did you make that statement if you didn't want to talk about Christianity? Why do you continue to talk about it if you don't want to hear about it?

---

Ok, just replying to this, because you're still asking, but then I'm out.

The one time I mentioned Christianity, was when I wrote it made us weak, and male/female equality got worse.
When I said it made us weak, I meant that we no longer had a chance against the mighty, rich & and very powerful England for example. Just our tiny land with no minerals, fields that was hard to grow crops in and such.
Could write again here, if your argument should come, but no, let's not do that. ;)

(rhetorical) It is closely related to the Viking Age. How could I not have mentioned it?
I didn't bring it up to a direct conversation about Christianity it self, suddenly involving Jesus.



No hard feelings!
Enjoy your day :)
/out

---

when I wrote it made us weak, and male/female equality got worse.

---

YES, and it also MAKES SENSE that someone like ROLLO

who RAPED the SERVANT GIRL

because LAGERTHA REJECTS him when he tried to have sex with her

(even when she's still also married to his brother)

would decide to LIVE in A CULTURE where WOMEN have NO LEGAL STATUS or RIGHTS like LAGERTHA has in VIKING SOCIETY

where she's able to DIVORCE her husband and become an EARL or his EQUAL in STATUS (before he becomes KING).

So in this OTHER CULTURE,

while his WIFE is PREGNANT and REFUSES to have SEX with him during her PREGNANCY,

LEGALLY ROLLO can also GRAB HOLD of as many SERVANT GIRLS as he LIKES and RAPE THEM as well.

Because we also already saw the WOMAN who was FALSELY ACCUSED of ADULTRY, with her FACE as BADLY SCARRED by her husband as the face of PORUNN had been in BATTLE, come before the CHRISTIAN KING who was also asked to PERMIT the ABUSIVE HUSBAND to BEAT the WIFE again in PUBLIC this time.

And that also brings to mind the OTHER SCENE where the FAT BISHOP CUTS off JUDITH'S EAR for the same reason, and was also about to CUT OFF her other EAR and her NOSE when Ecbert stops him.

So naturally ROLLO will be RIGHT at HOME in this OTHER CULTURE where WOMEN don't have the SAME KIND of RIGHTS as the VIKING WOMEN have, and he GETS to GRAB HOLD of and RAPE as many YOUNG GIRLS as he likes.

Because if one of them were to complain about it, we also know she'd be accused of FLIRTING with HIM or doing something else that indicates she DESERVED to be ABUSED by him.

And this is also why one will be happy to see FLOKI do the SAME THING to ROLLO that he did to ATHELSTAN.

And

RAGNAR might end up inside of a SNAKE PITT,


but ROLLO's HEAD HANGING UP on a VIKING BOAT would be an even MORE IMPRESSIVE SIGHT to SEE.

WATCH OUT ROLLO!!!

HERE COME'S FLOKI !!!

GO FLOKI !!!

Exactly! Not many (almost no one?) will believe this.

I mean no offence, but when this is brought up by those who support Christianity, in the same matter of equal males & females, the answer is that, Jesus saw them as equals. Okay.. And? It didn't really turn out this way, at all . Imo that defence = zero value.

Pretty much only Odin & Thor are mentioned, but there are quite a few gods. Since all most everyone is considered alive "up stairs", they tend to carry out some of the same deeds.

Another very important goddess is Frigg, Odins wife. Seen as a very close equal to Odin. She can also predict some of the future, but never tells about it; Even to Odin! He can ask for advice, though. Because of her quiet nature, not very much is known of her.

There is not just one god of war, but another very important goddess of war is Freja! She commands the Valkyries (which are also all females), who rides over the battlefields, deciding who is to die, and brining them to Frejas house; Considered the passageway, before hitting Valhalla.
Often warriors wouldn't call out "Odin", but instead "Tyr", as he could give a "push" to the bravest warriors, and at the same time, also those who could prove to be valuable in the future (another battle or another course), therefore not letting them die.

The bottom line;
The amount female gods and their significant impact & importance must have been the reason.

---

when this is brought up by those who support Christianity, in the same matter of equal males & females, the answer is that, Jesus saw them as equals. Okay.. And? It didn't really turn out this way, at all . Imo that defence = zero value.

---

YES you're right.

Jesus did see males and females as being EQUAL.

This is made evident for us in the BOOK of THOMAS:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm

---

114) Simon Peter said to Him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are
not worthy of Life."

Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her
male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you
males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the
Kingdom of Heaven."

---

But the problem is the way CHRISTIANITY rejects what he said, and they also tried to HIDE what JESUS said, so that they could promote their SELFISH PATRIARCHAL AGENDA.

And we also know ROLLO doesn't believe in EQUALITY for WOMEN either, due to the way he told SIGGY he would SCREW as many women as he liked.

But then when she SCREWS KING HORIK and his TEENAGED BRAT, ROLLO has the BIG HISSY FIT about it, and almost CHOKES her to death, before he proceeds to RAPE her for behaving in the same SLUTTY WAY that he himself had behaved.

And we also know how the "DO AS I SAY BUT NOT AS I DO MYSELF" philosophy, or what's called THE DOUBLE STANDARD, has also been a part of CHRISTIAN CULTURE for thousands of years.

So once again ROLLO THE RAPIST and TRAITOR becomes a much better FIT for this other CHRISTAIN CULTURE with it's DOUBLE STANDARD, where he gets to SCREW as many women as he likes, but the woman who becomes his mate is only suppose to screw ROLLO.



And this is also why one looks forward to watching FLOKI getting rid of him.

And even though
RAGNAR might end up inside of a SNAKE PITT,


ROLLO's HEAD HANGING UP on a VIKING BOAT would be an even MORE IMPRESSIVE SIGHT to SEE.

WATCH OUT ROLLO!!!

HERE COME'S FLOKI !!!

GO FLOKI !!!

---

The one time I mentioned Christianity, was when I wrote it made us weak, and male/female equality got worse.
When I said it made us weak, I meant that we no longer had a chance against the mighty, rich & and very powerful England for example.

---

I doubt you have any evidence whatsoever that male and female equality got worse under Christianity. For that matter, I doubt you have any solid evidence that male and female equality was so great under Norse mythology, reminding you that it was Christians who wrote down the Norse mythology and preserved it for future generations. As to not having a chance against rich and powerful countries like England, pray, what rich and powerful countries were bothering Scandinavia, either before or after it turned Christian?

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

Frankia as in Louis and his son Lothar certainly were not 'simpering miss' guys.

This said, Lothar was not Charles and indeed M Hirst spells out clearly a background of brotherly hatred between the Frank realm leadership but he has yet to spell out an equation we have not heard about. Well we have in real history books.

Certainly the people of Western Frankia be it Nantes Tours Paris had nothing to do with the Dane March. hence DenMark comes to think of it

The middle initial is S standing for Sarcasm.

Zanza, Thought you might find this article interesting:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/08/sorry-the-vikings-really-were-that-bad/

Thanks, Richildis! I especially liked these parts.

---

an impressive new exhibition thats coming to the British Museum next year, Viking, now in Copenhagen, presents a different take on the Vikings than the revisionist notion of them as proto-feminists and early multiculturalists. They were, as we first thought, violent bastards. In contrast to recent exhibitions which have focused on their (perfectly real) record as city founders, brilliant seafarers and traders with an interest in good governance, the exhibits return us to the traditional image of pillagers, raiders and aggressive colonisers: the artefacts are hard to square with them as peaceful farmers with an interest in travel.

---

This is always good, to have hard scientific evidence to put against the pipe dreams of people who want to romanticize the Vikings.

---

The longboat on display is a weapon of war, and the alarming swords, spears, battleaxes and lozenge-shaped arrows tell their own story. As do the iron slave-collars from Dublin. One observer suggested that the Lewis chessmen in the exhibition biting on their shields recall their reputation for bloodlust. Because, you know, even in a violent age and monastic chroniclers were perfectly used to violence the Vikings cruelty and joy in battle put them in a class of their own.

---

Interesting that they mention slave collars, as evidence has surfaced recently that one of the reasons the Vikings raided was to collect slaves.

---

Of course the revisionists have a point that there is more to them than this; but what you might call the hinterland of the Vikings has been familiar for over a century; the entry in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, takes supposedly modern assumptions about their assimilating tendencies as a given and observes that the sources are largely one-sided. Whats more interesting are the reasons for the contemporary need to view the Vikings in a light completely other than the terror of the West.

---

It certainly is worth pondering why people want to romanticize the Vikings. I agree with the idea that modern liberals are so happy with modern Scandinavia that they just can't bear to think of the dark history of the region. They just can't stand to believe the Vikings were that bad, and since they don't like Christians anyway, they prefer to think the bad reputation of the Vikings was fabricated by Christians. Rather like thinking the bad reputation of the Nazis was fabricated by the Jews who survived the concentration camps, a comparison that has been made a number of times on this board.

---

One scholar who has made it his business to cut through revisionist cant is David Dumville, professor of history and paleography at the University of Aberdeen. He puts the fashion for cuddly Vikings squarely down to Swedish war guilt about not participating in the war and American political correctness. Half a century ago, he says, no one would have said all thisFor a saner approach, he suggests the simple thing is to go back to the chronicles which were on the whole contemporary records and see the extraordinary similarity between what was happening in different contexts and continents. I dont think theres any way round what the contemporary sources are sayingamong contemporaries, no one was in any doubt that Vikings were bad news.

---

Indeed. Vikings were bad people who went out to rob and rape and kill out of pure blood lust and greed, but for some reason, people want to picture them as warm and fuzzy, so much so that posters on this forum were annoyed that Harold and Halfdan were shown raping and torturing a family to death. The show didn't even present the actual rape and torture, just the gruesome aftermath of the broken bodies, and you remember how some posters got the vapors because they didn't like the Vikings being shown in their true light.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

To say that the Spectator has garnered somewhat of a dubious reputation for the in-depth of its articles is a given in Britain.

As a long standing UK-Resident I take what it reports with a heavy grain of salt especially when I have VISITED the exhibition. Along friends from Sweden, Scotland and Surrey. We all had our private agendas of sorts.

There were fabulous artifacts and yes the war ship was impressive like the filed teeth skulls along the window about Vikings getting what one would call their just deserts aka the St Brice massacre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Brice%27s_Day_massacre

I do not approve of massacres by definition.

Thee was a massive shield making me feel sorry for whoever carried it. Splendid jewellery. It was brilliant.

That Vikings were rough players was obvious but the exhibition catered also for the Norse civilization which was very interesting.

The Lewis chess men closed what Norse children small long boats had opened.

I do not know what was the agenda of the journalist (trust me, it was about a modern one) but his report has nothing to do with the reality of the exhibit and yes, w did not miss the thrall neck band

but it was about more than this article plus we had been spoiled by the british museum pre-emptive movie

The middle initial is S standing for Sarcasm.

Morangles, the Vikings were robbers and rapists and murderers and they were accurately recorded as such and accepted as such until the twentieth century, when history began to be revised and the Vikings started to be seen as much-maligned victims of contemporary Christians who recorded their brutality. I don't really care about the agenda of the journalist, or if the Spectator is not the most respectable paper. What the article says is in line with history, that Vikings were bad guys. I just don't get why so many people nowadays want to change history and act like the Vikings weren't so bad. It's like all the romanticizing of pirates. Why is it that the criminals of history are romanticized, while the good decent people are forgotten?

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

I would not rely on the Spectator fine analysis to know Vikings were robbers.

My sources come from respected historians.

Yes, Vikings were robbers but using this newspaper as the fountain of truth is almost on par to quoting Mein Kampf to explain German History.



The middle initial is S standing for Sarcasm.

From what I can tell, it's simply a conservative leaning news journal and it's been around since 1828. No where near "Mein Kampf". I mean I don't read it or anything, I came upon that article looking for something else but after your criticism decided to look it up and no where did I find anything implying it was practically Mein Kampf. Nothing beyond the usual liberal/conservative type of "we don't like them they are other side" criticism.

Morangles, stop. Just stop. I did not say I am using this newspaper as the fountain of truth. Those are your words. I am saying that this newspaper has a truthful article that agrees with the historical record. Are you saying that if a bad newspaper publishes something truthful, it's no longer the truth?

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

---

If you consider changing from marauding slavers and rapists and murderers, to decent people who stayed home and built a culture that the whole world admires to be weak, I find that a very strange viewpoint indeed.

---

Always remember Zanza, the marauding slavers, rapists and murderers made up less than 1% of the population.

The question should really be what were the other 99% up to?



"The less equal the choice, the easier it is to choose."
Kjalnesinga Saga

---

---

If you consider changing from marauding slavers and rapists and murderers, to decent people who stayed home and built a culture that the whole world admires to be weak, I find that a very strange viewpoint indeed. Always remember Zanza, the marauding slavers, rapists and murderers made up less than 1% of the population.

---

The question should really be what were the other 99% up to?

---

No, Reykjavik, the question is why the other poster is trying to equate that 1% of the population with other countries and their wars against each other, which is like comparing apples and oranges. Vikings were not a country. They were not even the majority of the population of any country. They were criminals, and now they're being romanticized, but there is no comparing bands of thugs who went out to rob and rape and kill, with legitimate governments that may have fought each other but also traded with each other and established diplomatic ties with each other. The question is why the other poster brought in Christianity as making Scandinavia weak, when it was the Christians who saved the Norse mythology by writing it down and changed Scandinavian society by getting rid of human sacrifice and infanticide and slavery.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

If I remember, I think it was Jarl Borg or rather his actor who said that the 99% who stayed and did not go Viking were his ancestors who were farmers.

Sorry cannot remember or find quote unless it was one of my RL friends who is from the Southern part of Sweden.

Who were the ones who stayed? The slaves, the children, the elder, a very large percentage of women (to be honest I doubt the number of shieldmaiden reached above 1% of females and a good percentage of males probably above 50%)

firstly a fair number of vikings must have died abroad so unable to reproduce,secondly the ones who had land were probably keen to keep it this staying by the homestead was a wise move to avoid seeing it stolen by a neighbour

this is an uneducated guess

what are the real historical statistics




The middle initial is S standing for Sarcasm.

---

You're replying with a history lesson to this question??

Is the actual history lesson over?

---

Even though we have SEARCH ENGINES that can answer any questions that we might have about history,

certain posters still feel the need to keep giving us LESSONS that we haven't asked for, don't want, and don't care about.

I must confess the truth: I use search engines!
I would be pretty dumb if I didn't in this modern World.

Oh yeah! Only to agree.

But well! Seems imo it took a bit different turn though, so I'll keep this as "non-search-able". :D

Don't feel too Schick. I like xxpoo ;)

No it's a great storyline and loosely based on history. History being that Rollo was not brother to Ragnar, who may not have even existed, but that Rollo was awarded a title in return for protecting the Franks from other Vikings..

I am so happy Rollo finally got away from Ragnar and his stifling, glory-hogging, self-pitying nature. I am happy he is able to live up to his potential for greatness - he was always a great warrior but now he's proven himself a great leader and a great man.

He had to leave Ragnar and that world behind, to get away from it, to grow into what he could be, the founder of a new culture(the Normans) and a dynasty that has ancestors in just about every royal house in Europe. On the personal improvement side, he's someone who can speak Frankish as well as his own language, and at least a little Latin(he spoke Latin to the crowd) and very possibly can now read and write(in the tutoring scene it appears Bishop Lupus was teaching him to read as well). Someone who has learned to live in a new land, a new culture, who has made himself accepted and trusted by it's king and it's people(at least some of them) because he was true to his word and helped them. No one, absolutely no one can take any credit for his accomplishments here, except himself(I don't mean he fought the battles alone I mean what he deserves credit for is truly his, his ideas, his accomplishments, he earned all of them through his own efforts, from the love of his wife to his hero's welcome).


Now I think he will start to bring back some of the "good" Viking stuff into his world and that will become the basis of Normandy but first he had to go as far as he could "away from home" to truly stretch his wings. That's what has to be done sometimes - get as far away from home as possible to get a whole new perspective and then you can see what can be kept from before. Because of course he is a Viking, it's what shaped him into who he is and he's going to want to acknowledge that.

I honestly felt joyful seeing his heroic return to Paris, with his beloved wife greeting him and Emperor Charles awarding him the laurel wreath and the people cheering. He was so beat up("you should see the other guy" at least Rollo had one eye not swollen shut lol) but he did a really good thing and he did it, not just for himself, but for love. He loves Gisla, she loves him and as much as anything he did this for her.


Rollo was protecting the people who that land belongs to, it doesn't even matter why, it was still the right thing to do and Rollo did a darn good job of it and he still had mercy on the retreating Vikings and did not command his troops to pursue them all the way out of the country.

So yeah I wasn't really on the Vikings side, I wasn't even on the Vikings side when they attacked Lindisfarne in the first episode(or was it second). Paris did not belong to Ragnar, he just wanted to steal from it and make a name from himself from. Rollo has this place his home now.

I'm glad Rollo got this storyline, it's been amazing for him and I'm happy he finally found the love and room to live up to his potential that he was never going to find in Kattegat with his brother around.

---

I am so happy Rollo finally got away from Ragnar and his stifling, glory-hogging, self-pitying nature. I am happy he is able to live up to his potential for greatness - he was always a great warrior but now he's proven himself a great leader and a great manI honestly felt joyful seeing his heroic return to Paris, with his beloved wife greeting him and Emperor Charles awarding him the laurel wreath and the people cheering. He was so beat up("you should see the other guy" at least Rollo had one eye not swollen shut lol) but he did a really good thing and he did it, not just for himself, but for love. He loves Gisla, she loves him and as much as anything he did this for her.

---

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

Well said.

Thanks. :)