Historical revisionism in Assassin's Creed: Valhalla | Forums

[VestigialLlama4]

Remember you die. Die sword in your hand. Or loose all. There is no death but failing! So you do not fail.

That's your interpretation of the Viking stories, but it's not in the least a reflection of how the Norse peoples understood their beliefs. Nobody knows that at all.

The surviving Norse stories were written down after they all converted to Christianity. This is different from the Greek Myths like Hesiod and Homer and others. Unlike Ancient Egypt (with the Book of the Dead), Ancient Greece, and Hinduism (the only surviving classical polytheistic religion), we don't have any texts of Norse culture written by people who actually believed in that faith.

What we have is basically a list of stories but without the theology, commentary, moral precepts and other stuff you get in other religious stuff.

Imagine if say Christianity died out and all people had to base it on was some stories from the New Testament, so we get maybe a fragment of one of the four gospels with some scenes and moments, and the biggest section that survives is the Book of Revelations. Based on that people will conclude that Christians were obsessed with living out and waiting for Judgment Day and the arrival of the Apocalypse. The Christian religion has an eschatological component but that's not the dominant or representative aspect of Christianity. In day to day life, Christianity as a religion is focused on moral precepts, compassion, charity, forgiveness and so on.

That's what you need to factor with the Norse Polytheism what we have about that is just bits of different pieces. Today Ragnarokkr is the defining aspect of the Norse religion but that might not have been how the actual believers saw things.

What we have about the Norse peoples historically is that they weren't some death cult. They were in fact epicures. They like to live it large, they liked jewelry, they liked the good life. Where Norse myth and Ragnarok factored into that who knows.

But ultimately, based on the myths, human actions do not bring about Ragnarokkr, only the actions of the jotunns and the aesir bring that about. So a Norse warrior might think that their foes fallen in battle have gone to Valhalla, the same way Greek warriors were believed to have gone to Elysium, and where Christian soldiers were believed to have died and gone to heaven...but that's not remotely identical to say the logic of suicide bombers today (who by the way are very fringe and unrepresentative of their faith) or say the Jim Jones and Aum Shinrikyo Death Cult.

[pesto.]

Historical revisionism is why you guys have your current views of history. History is constantly revised to fit the motives of those who seek use of it. Fortunately the written word and later printing press has allowed us a window into meta history and it is even its own russian doll subject.

The real question is why are you trying to pass moral judgement on events of the past? X was good, Y was bad. That's item of faith, it comes from the false pretense of social need. Enlightenment doesn't really achieving wisdom (unless you could the wisdom of survival) it simply means "understanding", a little bit of a weasel word that one. Therefore be careful if you think you and your views are enlightened, one could equally say indoctrinated. Ignorant in another time or place.

AC is not a historical drama, it is a fantasy with a historical setting. It's as much historical revisionism as Beowulf or The Odyssey. The name of this game is pretty clear. You don't see so much kerfuffle over God Of War, which literally dismembers the gods and idols of the past.

I will be looking forward to the historical elements in the game. These will be the day to day living and customs of the time in as much as we can presume and know from sources like Bede and conjecture from archaeology and document before and after the dark ages. I look forward to seeing the artistic interpretation of sites, industry and structures of the era. I don't expect to change my judgements on the people of the time because... the people are fictional artistic interpretations too.

I totally get the desire to have a game based around actual historical data, but that would have be to set much more recently. Despite the allure of technology it doesn't allow us to actually see into nor visit the past yet, only curate our views further. I'm not sure if AC is the game for it, despite it's fantastic budget it needs to be entertainment and you're less likely to get Shindlers List than Inglorious Basterds.

[RHYLASS]

That's my take on it right.

but it's not in the least a reflection of how the Norse peoples understood their beliefs. Nobody knows that at all.

Pretty much all they left behind was about this! Die. Not just die but get slain in battle! The trick according to there myth, religion, their claim on sense and purpose was this. Exactly this. LOL How did the Norse understood their beliefs? If you" - no offence - claim no one can probably know? Why not take them for what its worth? Their ******g own claims on the matter? Your not come across convincing here LV4. Contradicting yourself on the matter.

Complains about the authority, the authenticity of their own lore is highly debatable, especially making false comparisons between independent cultures ....

What we have is basically a list of stories but without the theology, commentary, moral precepts and other stuff you get in other religious stuff.

I agree here. Same like say, what we know to day about of the United States of America The UK - Germany. So what's the argument? Missing the point.

What we have about the Norse peoples historically is that they weren't some death cult. They were in fact epicures. They like to live it large, they liked jewelry, they liked the good life. Where Norse myth and Ragnarok factored into that who knows.

Agreed. Beside this, according to themselves they thought, .... you got to have the chance to make a call. When it so happens, you fight, do make a point! They are adamant about this, I can't see why anyone can make a fuzz about it? Their ENTIRE! Society was built around survival Hence all the slaughter and dying (laughs) since - AND WHEN YOU DIE YOU DIE - make it worth!

Die fighting! Save your "soul", save yourself. Be worth the man - and Woman? - beside you in the Shield wall, save the children the old the land. The entire attitude towards fighting and dying is about "Können" to be capable. Not about numbers, about will power and a shameless neglecting of self-preservation if all the cunning fails you. Formidable! You can't fail.

What we have about the Norse peoples historically is that they weren't some death cult.

No, they were not. Yet they rather died bloody than old.

On a closing note, I muse trying to see them in our own notoriety is leading to nothing.

[VestigialLlama4]

Pretty much all they left behind was about this!

You don't get it. "They" didn't leave anything behind.

The actual Aesir-worshipping Vikings didn't write anything behind. All the stories we have comes from oral tradition passed down to descendants who had A) settled in Iceland, B) converted to Christianity. The idea that the Icelandic texts represents the mainstream of Norse Polytheism seems extremely unlikely.

Agreed. Beside this, according to themselves they thought,

We don't have any of the stuff "they thought". We have oral tradition centuries later by descendants who converted to Christianity.

Yet they rather died bloody than old.

They can't have preferred to "died bloody than old" and yet integrate/assimilate/settle/convert/colonize as they did. There's an incompatibility in thought and action there that your viewpoint does not a) acknowledge, b) sufficiently explain.

[Greybush1982]

-- The Vikings left these Scandinavian homes and invaded/immigrated/settled in sufficient numbers in Eastern Europe, England, Ireland, Iceland, Greenland. So if you want to really understand the Viking cultures, visiting these places or the towns with "thorpe" as a suffix will tell you more about it than being in Norway, Denmark, Sweden. No offense to Scandinavians here but that's a fact. There's more to Scandinavia than Vikings largely because the Vikings in general left Scandinavian shores.

No offense taken. But unless you're specifically talking about vikings as in those who left to settle elsewhere and not Norsemen as a whole (in which case it's debatable), it's simply wrong.
It's like saying you'll understand more about British culture by traveling to the US or Australia than you would by traveling to the UK. Or that you'll learn more about Norwegians by visiting Minnesota.

[Insectodium]

Are they still around? No. They were either wiped out or mingled. That’s what happens to any culture, indeed any species, that no longer exists. Even if the actual people themselves survived and their descendants are alive right now, their culture, their way of life, ended. Either someone stopped them from having it anymore, or they mixed in with another culture until it was entirely subsumed. That’s how it goes.

Yes, I'm still here. At least i think so,,,
No one seems to have wiped me out yet. And Its a known fact that we Norwegians don't like to mingle...
We still celebrate Jul, not Christmas. We brew ale for Jul too. We like do a lot of stuff and like to party

[Insectodium]

There is no history book that could make the Vikings look like the good guys, it's never been done and one should fell embarrassed in doing so.

The history books in Norway do, and no one is embarrassed, rather proud actually.

[smit2busy]

Just wanted to share these lyrics from a song by Bob Dylan. I think this summarizes this debate:


Oh my name it ain't nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I was taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side

Oh, the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh, the country was young
With God on its side

Listen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y2FuDY6Q4M

The Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War, too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I was made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side

The First World War, boys
It came and it went
The reason for fighting
I never did get
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side

The Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And then we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now, too
Have God on their side

I've learned to hate the Russians
All through my whole life
If another war comes
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side

But now we got weapons
Of chemical dust
If fire them, we're forced to
Then fire, them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side

Through many a dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ was
Betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
That if God's on our side
He'll stop the next war

[paddy234]

Christian priests may have tried to outlaw it or say its bad, but Ireland had slavery in that time. It had slavery before the Vikings, during the Vikings, and after the Vikings converted to Christianity. Slavery in Ireland reached its height in the 11th Century and it was abolished because of William the Conqueror who ended slavery in England, and so shut down Ireland's biggest export market. Then the Anglo-Normans came in and shut down slavery for good and established serfdom in its place.

So again your argument is simplistic, hagiographic, distortion of evidence and truth, and easily debunked.






Then how come the biggest slave revolts and revolutions in history whether it's Spartacus in the Ancient World or the Voudou-Worshipping Haitians of the 1790s, were non-Christian? Spartacus, we don't know of, but if he had religious beliefs, it damn sure wasn't Christian. The Haitian Revolutionaries likewise practised Voudou, their own faith generated in their struggle against their slave masters (who were Catholic for the most part). It was the government of Maximilien Robespierre and the Jacobins that was the first major European nation to abolish slavery, and they enforced it by dispatching agents in the Caribbean to enact it. Robespierre was a Deist and definitely not a Christian.

Again your Catholic Christian-Supremacist views, that Christianity somehow is responsible for everything is laughably inaccurate and intellectually disingenuous. And it's debunked easily.

I am not saying Christianity is bad or anything, if someone were to say that here, I would move against them and debunk them just as I am debunking you now. But I am against propaganda for any side and viewpoint. Especially when you credit Christianity and the Catholic Church for stuff that was far beyond their ability to do. The Catholic Church weren't the ones who led the economic and social revolutions that led Western Europe to get its advantage.

And in any case the rise of Western Europe over Eastern Europe was also driven by something that was enacted by Catholic Nations, such as the Teutonic Knights of Prussia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth who introduced serfdom in countries where peasants had free movement and rights. When the Renaissance ended serfdom in the West, serfdom increased in the East, and because of the economic influence of the P-L Commonwealth and Prussia...Russia introduced serfdom there too. So what was the Church doing when peasants were pauperized in such great numbers in a country that had converted to the "true" faith, especially since it was led by the Teutonic Knights and their descendants who pauperized so many.

Once again you are leaving big gaps and i feel you are doing so purposely. Surely based on that comment you would know that it's common knowledge that Dublin in the 11th century was the slave trade capital of western Europe due to the Vikings. Your point here that slavery in Ireland still existed makes no sense, that would be like saying slavery has never been abolished in the west at all because there is still slavery today which there is and unfortunately it is growing, what was abolished was the the legitimacy of slavery by law, it has now been relegated to the criminal underworld where it still thrives. Just because there was slavery in Ireland doesn't nullify my point that it was classed as a moral evil due to it's conversion of Christianity which it was. In Ireland around the 6th century slavery had for the most part ended for a period later seeing a resurgence in the 9th century which became more widespread as the Vikings arrived who flourished under the slave trade. Pope John VIII later declared in the 9th century within this resurgence of slavery that all Christians who held other Christians as slaves were committing a great moral evil.

I never claimed Slavery never existed in Ireland and unfortunately it still does today as in all nations of the earth, my claim was it that abolished beginning with St Patrick and Ireland's conversion to Christianity which it was, at least for period until it seen a resurgence

There were a number of slave revolts including the largest slave revolt since the fall of the Roman empire in Iceland by Irish slaves of Vikings.. Little to no revolts or revolutions led to the abolishment of slavery which i'm sure you know. What led to it being abolished was how incompatible it became with a world that ever so slightly generation by generation was trying to reconcile itself with inalienable truths about the origin of Man and his relationship with God through the Christian world-view. It was defeated philosophically, it could no longer be justified in a world that determined that all men were created equally with intrinsic value and dignity. This is what i mean when i say the movement against slavery was entirely Christian, the world-view that slavery could no longer sustain itself under was one that give root to the objective truths i mentioned above.

Did i say Christianity was responsible for ALL the good things in the west, of course not and to do so would be simply untrue as there were many evil deeds committed in it's name. My claim is that it was overall a great good responsible for becoming the ethos behind building western civilization after the fall of Rome, considering the fact that the role of Christianity is to unify man with God through Christ and for man to live according to these Truths through Virtue as best he can. Let me clarify this again one more time, not all actions by Christians were good, MANY were evil and we learn from those mistakes only when we can know they were wrong in the first place according to an objective standard

Sorry but you have debunked nothing through quite vague and misleading points. I find most of the time you merely misunderstood what i'm saying and perhaps i need to be more thorough which i'm sorry if i haven't been however this is a game forum after all about a franchise that doesn't take itself too seriously so i'm not wanting to get too deep into this over Assassins Creed though i must admit i do enjoy it.

[RHYLASS]

You don't get it. "They" didn't leave anything behind.

The actual Aesir-worshipping Vikings didn't write anything behind. All the stories we have comes from oral tradition passed down to descendants who had A) settled in Iceland, B) converted to Christianity. The idea that the Icelandic texts represents the mainstream of Norse Polytheism seems extremely unlikely.



We don't have any of the stuff "they thought". We have oral tradition centuries later by descendants who converted to Christianity.



They can't have preferred to "died bloody than old" and yet integrate/assimilate/settle/convert/colonize as they did. There's an incompatibility in thought and action there that your viewpoint does not a) acknowledge, b) sufficiently explain.

LV4 to say they didn't leave anything behind is riching a little too far. Archeology wants to know a lot about them.
While they had no written records directly, there are countless historical sources about them ....

They were no suicide commando no, but normal folks livng their lives - not just in one direction so what? Does that not explain to you their development in any civilized direction?
It does to me. Including their aggressive attitude and violence based on their religion. Leaving little or nothing to guess.