David said:Rod Speed wrote:
There's a few reasons. One is that the land was relatively poor in
Scandinavia, meaning that they had more to gain by foreign trade and
foreign raids. The other is that they were excellent shipbuilders and
sailors. You don't hear much about Germanic peoples of the time who
raided or traded with their neighbours on foot or horseback - you hear
about the Vikings partly because it was over longer distances and with a
wider range of targets. It is also because of the sea travel that the
exchanges were so one-sided - no one (except other Vikings) came to
Scandinavia.
John said:<heavily edited>
Hello, David:
You're quite correct, about the Vikings' refined shipbuilding skills and
seamanship. No matter how feisty their contemporaries were (e.g., Celts),
those other groups were also more insular, due to their somewhat limited
mobility.
Also, despite their great cultures, the sailing vessels of the ancient
Greeks and Romans weren't very advanced.
John said:Hello, David:
The Vikings' "cultural and genetic heritage" is comparatively sparse, in
my view. The Normans became thoroughly "Frenchified" and the peoples of
Britain and Ireland are still of Celtic stock, overwhelmingly.
Regarding language, English has an Anglo-Saxon base, which was largely
modified by the French-speaking Norman subjugators.
Unlikely. Contrary to popular belief, Christopher Columbus never even
set foot on the North American continent!
Are you sure that "kangaroo courts" didn't predominate, though? (Rod
Speed might appreciate my subtle reference to the famous Australian
marsupial, perhaps. <g>)
"Demands" are easily made, but, how often are they fulfulled? Besides,
this simply fits the prevailing stereotype of vengeful, bloodthirsty
Vikings.
Really? Not according to a Wikipedia article on Sweden, I'd seen, a few
months ago. It claimed that, during the late 19th century and early 20th
century, Swedish emigrants to the United States found American society
to be much more democratic (and far less authoritarian) than their "old
country" ever was.
John Turco wrote
That's true enough, and certainly most of our genes are Celtic. But
studies have shown genetic descent from Vikings in many places in the UK. I don't mean to imply that Viking blood
dominates at all in the
UK, merely that surprisingly many of us have a little Viking in our ancestry.
The same thing applies in language - Viking language is an influence,
but not the main root. It is most obvious when you look at more local
languages and dialects - many of the Scots languages have much more
Nordic influence than "the Queen's English", and it can be seen today
in dialects and pronunciation. When I learned Norwegian, it was clear that there are a very large number of words in
English that have Nordic roots. It was also clear that as a Scot, I had advantages in learning
Norwegian over Englishmen or Americans, as our pronunciation of
letters is closer.
As I say, it's a speculative theory - and as such it's purely a matter
of personal opinion whether one feels it is believable and likely, or not.
I'm sure they had as much corruption and abuse as any other culture,
before or since. Certainly the Viking equivalent of an appeal was
swordplay (though this would be after the "ting", or assembly).
Written history from the time is sparse, though there is much more from Sweden at slightly later dates (say, 1200
onwards). Judging from my spare knowledge of the sparse records, such demands would seldom be made, such as if the
man in question was of considerable renown, but they would be carried out if the evidence was against him.
Was it Swedish women or Swedish men who claimed that?
There is certainly no doubt about modern Scandinavia being less male-biased that most other countries.
Some of that is perhaps a general effect of greater socialism (such as better maternity leave),
and I have no idea if or how that might have had historical Viking influence.
But other than that, I simply throwing out an idea - I have no evidence beyond the facts that women (free women,
anyway) had better
rights in Viking societies than in most contemporary societies,
and modern Scandinavian women have better rights than in most contemporary societies.
Whether these two situations are related or not is just an idea.
David said:John Turco wrote:
The Celts are another sometimes misunderstood people (or peoples - the
term Celts covers a wide range of tribes) - again, much of what was
written about them was written by the Romans, who were not always in
total agreement with their Celtic neighbours and subjects (see Asterix
and Obelix for details).
[* Present company excepted said:Also, despite their great cultures, the sailing vessels of the ancient
Greeks and Romans weren't very advanced.
Their ships /were/ pretty advanced (big, fast, reliable), but they were
designed for use in coastal waters and around the Mediterranean, and
were not suitable for the North Sea. The same applies to the navigation
skills and instruments, which are equally important to sea voyages.
David said:John Turco wrote:
That's true enough, and certainly most of our genes are Celtic. But
studies have shown genetic descent from Vikings in many places in the
UK. I don't mean to imply that Viking blood dominates at all in the UK,
merely that surprisingly many of us have a little Viking in our ancestry.
The same thing applies in language - Viking language is an influence,
but not the main root. It is most obvious when you look at more local
languages and dialects - many of the Scots languages have much more
Nordic influence than "the Queen's English", and it can be seen today in
dialects and pronunciation. When I learned Norwegian, it was clear that
there are a very large number of words in English that have Nordic
roots. It was also clear that as a Scot, I had advantages in learning
Norwegian over Englishmen or Americans, as our pronunciation of letters
is closer.
Written history from the time is sparse, though there is much more from
Sweden at slightly later dates (say, 1200 onwards). Judging from my
spare knowledge of the sparse records, such demands would seldom be
made, such as if the man in question was of considerable renown, but
they would be carried out if the evidence was against him.
Was it Swedish women or Swedish men who claimed that?
There is certainly no doubt about modern Scandinavia being less
male-biased that most other countries. Some of that is perhaps a
general effect of greater socialism (such as better maternity leave),
and I have no idea if or how that might have had historical Viking
influence.
But other than that, I simply throwing out an idea - I have no evidence
beyond the facts that women (free women, anyway) had better rights in
Viking societies than in most contemporary societies, and modern
Scandinavian women have better rights than in most contemporary
societies. Whether these two situations are related or not is just an
idea.
John said:David said:John Turco wrote:
That's true enough, and certainly most of our genes are Celtic. But
studies have shown genetic descent from Vikings in many places in the
UK. I don't mean to imply that Viking blood dominates at all in the
UK, merely that surprisingly many of us have a little Viking in our
ancestry.
Hello, David:
The Norman French even settled certain parts of the Mediterranean
region. They were in Sicily and southern Italy, and made raids
against Spain.
Therefore, who knows? Some of my Sicilian forebears could've been
distantly related (no pun intended) to a few of your hypothetical
Viking ancestors, back in merry old Scotland. ;-)
The same thing applies in language - Viking language is an influence,
but not the main root. It is most obvious when you look at more
local languages and dialects - many of the Scots languages have much
more Nordic influence than "the Queen's English", and it can be seen
today in dialects and pronunciation. When I learned Norwegian, it
was clear that there are a very large number of words in English
that have Nordic roots. It was also clear that as a Scot, I had
advantages in learning Norwegian over Englishmen or Americans, as
our pronunciation of letters is closer.
English and German are each part of the same western subset, of the
Germanic branch of the Indo-European language family; Norwegian,
Swedish and Danish all belong to the northern group. I find this
ironic, as at a glance, German looks so much more similar to those
Scandinavian tongues*, than it does to English.
Than, again, the Angles and the Saxons came from Germany, and the
Norman Conquest caused a distinct divergence between English and
German.
[* Finland is "Scandinavian" solely in a geographical sense, as that
nation is otherwise non-Nordic.]
Written history from the time is sparse, though there is much more
from Sweden at slightly later dates (say, 1200 onwards). Judging
from my spare knowledge of the sparse records, such demands would
seldom be made, such as if the man in question was of considerable
renown, but they would be carried out if the evidence was against
him.
Nevertheless, how would this type of brutal custom, possibly help to
portray the Vikings in a more favorable light?
Was it Swedish women or Swedish men who claimed that?
I don't remember, and why does it matter, anyhow? Or, are you implying
that only women's "claims" can have any validity?
There is certainly no doubt about modern Scandinavia being less
male-biased that most other countries. Some of that is perhaps a
general effect of greater socialism (such as better maternity leave),
and I have no idea if or how that might have had historical Viking
influence.
But other than that, I simply throwing out an idea - I have no
evidence beyond the facts that women (free women, anyway) had better
rights in Viking societies than in most contemporary societies, and
modern Scandinavian women have better rights than in most
contemporary societies. Whether these two situations are related or
not is just an idea.
<edited>
Modern Sweden's astronomical rates of juvenle delinquency,
out-of-wedlock births and suicides, may tend to offset the supposed
"benefits" of the country's overly permissive society.
Oh, well...has any thread in Usenet history, been as totally
unrelated to
a newsgroup's subject matter, as >this< one? I guess I'm to blame,
being the poster who first mentioned the Vlkings.
Conversely, has become so quiet,
in recent years, that >any< kind of discussion may be welcomed!
John said:David said:John Turco wrote:
The Celts are another sometimes misunderstood people (or peoples - the
term Celts covers a wide range of tribes) - again, much of what was
written about them was written by the Romans, who were not always in
total agreement with their Celtic neighbours and subjects (see Asterix
and Obelix for details).
Hello, David:
Well, such tribal "disagreements" were the norm, back then. Irrespective
of what the Romans wrote about them, the Celts had long been infamous* for
their combativeness, and were hardly intimidated by the vaunted Vikings.
[* Present company excepted, of course. <g>]
John said:<edited for brevity>
English and German are each part of the same western subset, of the Germanic
branch of the Indo-European language family; Norwegian, Swedish and Danish
all belong to the northern group. I find this ironic, as at a glance, German
looks so much more similar to those Scandinavian tongues*, than it does to
English.
Than, again, the Angles and the Saxons came from Germany, and the Norman
Conquest caused a distinct divergence between English and German.
[* Finland is "Scandinavian" solely in a geographical sense, as that nation
is otherwise non-Nordic.]
Nevertheless, how would this type of brutal custom, possibly help to
portray the Vikings in a more favorable light?
I don't remember, and why does it matter, anyhow? Or, are you implying
that only women's "claims" can have any validity?
<edited>
Modern Sweden's astronomical rates of juvenle delinquency, out-of-wedlock
births and suicides, may tend to offset the supposed "benefits" of the
country's overly permissive society.
Oh, well...has any thread in Usenet history, been as totally unrelated to
a newsgroup's subject matter, as >this< one? I guess I'm to blame, being
the poster who first mentioned the Vlkings.
Conversely, has become so quiet,
in recent years, that >any< kind of discussion may be welcomed!
John Turco wroteDavid Brown wroteWell, such tribal "disagreements" were the norm, back then.John Turco wrote
You're quite correct, about the Vikings' refined shipbuilding
skills and seamanship. No matter how feisty their contemporaries
were (e.g., Celts), those other groups were also more insular, due
to their somewhat limited mobility.
The Celts are another sometimes misunderstood people (or peoples -
the term Celts covers a wide range of tribes) - again, much of what
was written about them was written by the Romans, who were not
always in total agreement with their Celtic neighbours and subjects
(see Asterix and Obelix for details).
Irrespective of what the Romans wrote about them, the Celts had long been infamous* for their combativeness, and were
hardly intimidated by the vaunted Vikings.
[* Present company excepted, of course. <g>]
This can also be seen in the history of Scotland and England -
Scottish clans, the descendants of Celtic tribes, fought each other
so much that they had great trouble mounting a coherent defence
against the English armies. Norwegian history has a very similar story.
Although the Celts fought with each other, they were not often involved in conquest of non-Celtic neighbours.
They spread mainly by trade and cultural exchange,
until the neighbouring tribes gradually
became Celtic in cultural and language.
When they went to war, however, the Celts were fearsome - they were the only people the Roman soldiers were truly
afraid of even at the height of the empire's strength.
Of course, it helped that some Celtic tribes apparently averaged nearly a foot higher than the Romans, especially with
their long hair held vertically aloft with lime and mud.
One Celtic tradition that some tribes had, that I think should be
brought back in modern times, is royal sacrifice. The "king", or
tribe chief, was elected by the elders to serve for seven years. At the end of that time (or a shorter time, if they
did a poor job),
they were sacrificed to the gods. That way the leader was always someone who was totally dedicated to the good of the
people - no one took the job for personal gain.
David said:John said:<edited for brevity>
English and German are each part of the same western subset, of the
Germanic branch of the Indo-European language family; Norwegian,
Swedish and Danish all belong to the northern group. I find this
ironic, as at a glance, German looks so much more similar to those
Scandinavian tongues*, than it does to English.
It is difficult for an amateur to give a decent impression - even
though I am fairly fluent in Norwegian and have some memories of
German from school. It is hard to avoid being subjective. German
grammar is, I would say, closer to English grammar (especially older
English - try reading Milton for example) than to Norwegian grammar. In vocabulary, my vague guess is that English and
Norwegian are
closer to each other than either is to German.
Than, again, the Angles and the Saxons came from Germany, and the
Norman Conquest caused a distinct divergence between English and
German.
Yes, we are all mixed up - the British people and English language
especially.
[* Finland is "Scandinavian" solely in a geographical sense, as that
nation is otherwise non-Nordic.]
Parts of Finland are heavily Swedish in language, people, and history,
and modern Finnish culture is closer to the rest of Scandinavia than
to their other neighbours. But genetically and historically the Fins
are much closer to the Baltic counties than to the rest of
Scandinavia, and the Finnish language is an oddity (it's closely
related to Sami from the north of Scandinavia, and loosely related to
Hungarian).Nevertheless, how would this type of brutal custom, possibly help to
portray the Vikings in a more favorable light?
I guess the topic has strayed a little... the point was merely that while in most contemporary societies women were
effectively property owned by their father, husband or brothers,
in Viking society they had far more rights.
In 19th century Sweden, the average man was a farmer with very little influence on the running of the country.
On moving to the USA, he would have far more to say - democracy in the USA, especially at a local (and therefore more
immediately visible) level, was much more developed.
The point is, if a Swedish male emigrant said the USA was
more democratic than Sweden at the time, the comment without other context says absolutely nothing about the male
domination or women's rights in either country. If the Swede was a women, the assumption (again without context)
would be that it was in reference to her own democratic rights.
There are pros and cons of every system - but here you are mixing up significantly different social problems (some
would argue about whether out-of-wedlock births /is/ a problem) with significantly different causes and effects.
Take suicide for example. The general rule is that as standards of living go up, so do so suicide rates.
The theory goes that people commit suicide over things like relationship or financial problems -
people who have to struggle with getting enough food or shelter for their families do not commit suicide.
I think it is a good thing to have these sorts of threads on occasion
- groups like this are very international, and it's nice to have some
cross-cultural discussions.
Perhaps we should discuss the pros and cons of exFAT? That would combine an on-topic subject with opinion, politics,
philosophy, economics and religion...
Although the Celts fought with each other, they were not often involved
in conquest of non-Celtic neighbours. They spread mainly by trade and
cultural exchange, until the neighbouring tribes gradually became Celtic
in cultural and language.
When they went to war, however, the Celts were fearsome - they were the
only people the Roman soldiers were truly afraid of even at the height
of the empire's strength. Of course, it helped that some Celtic tribes
apparently averaged nearly a foot higher than the Romans, especially
with their long hair held vertically aloft with lime and mud.
David said:John Turco wrote:
I think it is a good thing to have these sorts of threads on occasion -
groups like this are very international, and it's nice to have some
cross-cultural discussions.
Perhaps we should discuss the pros and cons of exFAT?
That would combine an on-topic subject with opinion, politics,
philosophy, economics and religion...
Rod said:David Brown wrote
Even sillier. That aint the reason the romans gave up on them.
Rod said:David Brown wrote:
Pigs arse they were. You're ignoring Boudica and that english queen in spades.
Rod Speed wrote
Whatever their individual physical statures might have been, the
Celtic tribes of ancient Scotland proved to be formidable foes,
for both the Romans, themselves, and their mercenary troops.
John said:David Brown wrote:
<edited>
Hello, David:
Hmmm...I was under the impression that the Celts were typically shorter
(and rather duskier of hair, complexion and eye color), in comparison to
their Germanic counterparts? Albeit, you did write "some Celtic tribes,"
so, their may have been exceptions to the rule.
John Turco said:No, that's called "punctuation" -- better too many comas, than too few.
This
way, confusion can be more easily avoided.
John Turco said:Thanks, for the link. It enabled me to learn that "Bilky White" fits
the decription of a "chav" to such an incredible degree, that he might
be the genuine prototype of this grubby beast. ;-)
John Turco said:It's now painfully evident that you're >not< willing to offer anything of
value, to this newsgroup.