Historical revisionism in Assassin's Creed: Valhalla | Forums

[Megas_Doux]

Wrong! Again you repeat it! Can't believe you can't undestand it....

The essence of any war is money. Resources. Even today.
While there is money there will be wars.

But!

Someone advances - someone defends.

In Vikings case - they were defending.

The Truth was on their side.

They were defending against advancing christianisation and its political influence.
Conficts before were typical for the times, people were always fighting with each other.

l.

Vikings wanted riches and better lands, period. Whenever they didn't win the battle, they just accepted ransom in the form of.....Riches and lands, go figure.

Oh,were they defending against Muslims too? I highly doubt the Caliphate was able to reach them that up North.

I mean, Vikings raided places that, at the time, were on Saracen hands in the likes of Seville and Sicily. Hey, they even began working for the Byzantine Empire as their most prized mercenaries. And why wouldn't they????

It was a win-win situation. Once the Kievan Rus was converted to Christianity by the Byzantines, the Vikings probably thought going after THOSE walls and greek fire wasn't the smartest of decisions. Byzantines probably were like "Look, you are great warriors and sailors and we already have our hands full with the Saracens, so why don't you work for us?"

"Deal!!!!"

Everyone said!

[GameGuru2018]

We’ll absolutely never discover the real reason behind the first raid in 793, but there’s not much evidence of it being caused by religious conflict. Monasteries and churches in England at the time were quite simply places of great wealth, and little to no defensive capabilities.
If you were a Viking seeking wealth, and someone told you about monasteries, wouldn’t that be reason enough? Easy money, little risk.

If you’re using Alcuin’s account of the Lindisfarne raid as proof, keep in mind, as you yourself point out; These are Christian accounts of foreign attacks. Naturally they’re going to paint the raids in the most horrible light possible.
If the Vikings were engaging in a religious war, why didn’t they focus on holy relics, monks and priests and the monasteries themselves? The raids focused on acquiring wealth.
Do note that during the time of the Danelaw, Danes, Norse and English people all lived side by side, and intermarried as well. Once the Danes conquered territories, they didn’t massacre Christians still living there.

Viking expansion being driven by religious motivations is one theory out of many, but I do not it is the most likely one.

Alcuin will be a bridge, in our case.

Why was that vikings hatred towards christian holy places?

For a long time vikings and christians got along well. But it was before christianity started its violent agressive advance.


In 772 Charlemagne destroyed sacred for germans and scandinavians tree - Irminsul.(Yggdrasil.) Slaughtering about 5000 people after.





They were in close connections and know everything what was going on and how pagans were treated.
Vikings understood very clear - the same destiny will wait for them.

It was the last drop.


Moreover.....

Charlemagne and Alciun were in good terms.
The most part of what he had robbed, from the local pagans, their priests and sacred places......it was much....the most part he send to Alciun.
As gratitude and christianity development.
Alcuin was very happy for such a generous gift: gold, jewelry....Everything was donated to the churches and monasters.


So, when vikings came to "robe" churches......They came to take what belonged to their brothers. They came to take theirs. They came for Justice!

[VestigialLlama4]

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.

This language is deeply wrong and misleading. The survival, or extinction, of a culture is not even remotely analogous to the survival, or extinction, of a species.

Cultures are not organic creations. They are the expression of a living breathing people and society. And when people change, that culture changes and transforms along with them. Cultures are also not singular things. There are variations and changes. Even within the Norse cultures, there's evidence of differences. Like Loki is the great villain of the myths in a lot of versions, but in some (such as Loka Tattur) he is a positive figure, the god of fatherhood and a beloved defender of children. I mean it's similar to many polytheistic belief systems where you have differences and variations.

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.

The other big thing that needs to be pointed out here is...Religion is just one part of a given culture, but it's not the entirety of it. . If you look at Ancient Rome and Greece, sure the Greek and Roman myths are a big part of that culture, but Ancient Greek and Roman culture is not wholly religious. There is a lot more to them than religion.

Just because Norse Paganism ended and converted to Christianity, that only means that the culture of Scandinavian lands changed and transformed but that didn't mean that it eradicated itself by any means. A distinct Scandinavian culture and tradition did exist and thrive from the Norse to Christian eras. The fact is that Scandinavian Christians of the medieval era would have more in common with their Pagan ancestors than with their fellow Christian neighbors in say the HRE, in France, in Frisia, and other places. I mean Europe still had cultural differences even after it became Christian right, and they do so even today when religion is no longer very central to people living there.

I mean here's a fun fact, if you look at the divide between Protestantism and Catholicism in Europe, you will find that, in general, the parts of Europe that went Catholic are those territories that were directly conquered, settled, and administered by the Romans, while the parts that went Protestant are those that were from the Germanic lands that were never under Roman occupation or they were lands that were affected by and transformed by Viking invasions and raids (England, Scotland, Netherlands, Scandinavian, Northern Germany) and there's Russia which went Orthodox. There are exceptions (Ireland was also affected by the Vikings but it remains largely Caholic) but that's an example of a cultural and socio-political divide that survives, subconsciously, underneath religion.

[RHYLASS]

Opportunity.

The exception, the Children’s Crusade 1212 . Lead by German children?
How fiercely cruel is idealism, lead by naivety?

In case of our Viking war, I do not see any moral objections or motivations but opportunities. "England" was an opportunity.

In a dog eats dog world, like today, we are happy to entertain ourself, with history. Ethos is ever a subject to moral - succumbing to who ever, vocal, reads to an audience.

Victor wrote the books. I am sure your familiar with the sentence.

[RHYLASS]

Karl der Große

Sounds familiar?

[VestigialLlama4]

The exception, the Children’s Crusade 1212 . Lead by German children?

The Children's Crusade is a little more than folk tale. Historians now say it was largely a religious frenzy led by poor peasants and not actually comprised of wandering children.

And of course at the end of it they got sold into slavery, by fellow Christians.

In case of our Viking war,

Whoa..."our Viking", what the hell does that even mean?

I do not see any moral objections or motivations but opportunities. "England" was an opportunity.

In a dog eats dog world, like today, we are happy to entertain ourself, with history. Ethos is ever a subject to moral - succumbing to who ever, vocal, reads to an audience.

Victor wrote the books. I am sure your familiar with the sentence.

Here's the thing. As much as we all want to pushback against the demonization of the Vikings and put their actions in a context, that doesn't mean they are good guys or heroic, or that they didn't hurt or kill innocent people. Because they did. The fact is that the Northern Kingdoms and Alfred had a right to defend their lands against Vikings as did most Europeans. That's all fair. There's not much to mourn when a Viking falls in battle or loses in a fight because that's the bed they made for themselves. As much as we need to push back against the excessive demonization, we need to push back against this idea that the Vikings were doing what they did for some noble high purpose, or that they were defending a persecuted faith or so on. Because they weren't. Their motivations was plunder.

The fact is that the Vikings and their culture are well worth exploring, and also safe to explore, because we don't live in a reality where Vikingers are coming to raid our coastlines. And we also need to understand that the Vikingers attacked and raided anyone they could. Sure the Vikingers have some outlaw cool when they attack Christian Europe, but when the same people attack and raid, First Nations land in Canada, there's not much in their conduct that's different than the Catholic Explorers who came centuries later.

[RHYLASS]

The Children's Crusade is a little more than folk tale.

Hm perhaps not fitting modern standards but hardly just more then a "tale". I disagree. Go figure!

Whoa..."our Viking", what the hell does that even mean?

Valhalla?
I am talking about a game talking history and TELLING how it was.


Here's the thing. As much as we all want to pushback against the demonization of the Vikings and put their actions in a context, that doesn't mean they are good guys or heroic, or that they didn't hurt or kill innocent people. Because they did. The fact is that the Northern Kingdoms and Alfred had a right to defend their lands against Vikings as did most Europeans. That's all fair. There's not much to mourn when a Viking falls in battle or loses in a fight because that's the bed they made for themselves. As much as we need to push back against the excessive demonization, we need to push back against this idea that the Vikings were doing what they did for some noble high purpose, or that they were defending a persecuted faith or so on. Because they weren't. Their motivations was plunder.

The fact is that the Vikings and their culture are well worth exploring, and also safe to explore, because we don't live in a reality where Vikingers are coming to raid our coastlines. And we also need to understand that the Vikingers attacked and raided anyone they could. Sure the Vikingers have some outlaw cool when they attack Christian Europe, but when the same people attack and raid, First Nations land in Canada, there's not much in their conduct that's different than the Catholic Explorers who came centuries later.



The thing is, I do have no objections and or try to excuse or moralize human history. Where is that smiling Adolf Hitler caring about children and Animals and what not? Some how his gone missing. Although born a child of his mother sired by his father, caring suffering. Where is he?

Easy now!
The thing is, bloodshed hardly ever comes without a moral attached to it. While ETHOS hardly answers to anything but responsibility.
Answer to any confusion here is responsibility.

In our case here, the cruelty, the cause and subsequent consequences of Viking raids in "England" its ... down toward the men, and if you make me believe propaganda today, the woman committed!

Same as it ever was

HEIL!

[Tundra 793]

So, when vikings came to "robe" churches......They came to take what belonged to their brothers. They came to take theirs. They came for Justice!

Aight, let’s set aside all else for this example, assuming your theory is correct; The Vikings wanted revenge for a religious offence; Why would they instigate this revenge, against England (Northumbria specifically (who had not committed said offence)) 20 years later, and not against Charlemagne himself and the Frankish Empire?

[Megas_Doux]

Aight, let’s set aside all else for this example, assuming your theory is correct; The Vikings wanted revenge for a religious offence; Why would they instigate this revenge, against England (Northumbria specifically (who had not committed said offence)) 20 years later, and not against Charlemagne himself and the Frankish Empire?

Or raiding muslim cities...I mean, it's not like they did anything to the Vikings up North.

[RHYLASS]

The Norse the Germans the Franks the Goths, knew I guess its save to say, that they were targetted by Christianity later on and Rome in the first place.

Obviously the south was coming at them. Like today, they defended their Lebensraum, trying to gain and expend it.

Its not the North threatening Rome. Its late Rome culture conquering where the sword failed.
So in this sense you could occupy England in revenge.