5 ms·

And Anglo-Saxons did pretty much the same to Britons, Gaels and Picts some 300 years earlier. And Romans did the same before them. That's how things were done b

And Anglo-Saxons did pretty much the same to Britons, Gaels and Picts some 300 years earlier. And Romans did the same before them. That's how things were done back then, and I've read a number historians now saying that Viking raiders were neither more cruel, nor more violent than the others by the standards of those times, just the history we know was written by the other side - and importantly by Christians, while Viking raiders were pagans, so it was important to depict them as wild devils - the same way as Roman historians depicted conquered people as "barbaric", while in fact often Romans were acting far more savage than Moesians, Goths, Dacians and others.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
peteretep 6y ago
> That's how things were done back then And by “back then” we mean prior to about 1920
- cafard 6y ago
  Are you sure you don't mean 2120?
- matkoniecz 6y ago
  In 1939 an European country invaded another European countries with goal of murdering and enslaving population living there. Years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_... did similar thing in Iraq. (there are many other examples, I am not going to list all of them)
  - peteretep 6y ago
    In 1940 this was considered remarkable ... 50 years before that, not so much
JetSetWilly 6y ago
> I've read a number historians now saying that Viking raiders were neither more cruel, nor more violent than the others by the standards of those times, just the history we know was written by the other side Well, anglo saxon england wasn't a big fan of slavery, in fact the christian world in general wasn't and the church did a lot to combat it. And it was the vikings raiding anglo saxon england, not the other way around. So while you can always find historians to say, that all cultures are the same because of of various unconvincing whatboutery reasons, I think from our current understanding, between those two peoples at that moment in time, one side really was worse behaved.
- cmrdporcupine 6y ago
  Mass slavery of the Roman form wasn't "popular" among the West Germanic tribes because they had their own system of subjugation of a more feudal model, or at least something transitional between the classic Germanic class system (king, nobility karl/jarl, freemen, laymen) and what became feudalism. Or rather, after their brutal occupation and displacement of the Romano-Britons they came to emulate the Franks (the most successful post-Roman polity in Europe) in the structure of their economy. Think Serfs rather than Slaves. Slaves in the Roman system could be freed and become Roman citizens. In fact it was rather common after a generation or two. Peasants were peasants forever. Not saying one is more just than the other, but Christian influence in Europe certainly hadn't made for a more just system. Just a more theologically based one (God chose your King and Lord)
- ivanhoe 6y ago
  In early days many Britons were enslaved by invading Saxon forces, although slavery in Ancient/Early Middle Age times was in many ways different then what we usually expect based of what we know of slavery in US. It wasn't really based on race/ethnicity/religion as much as being out of luck and owing money, or being simply on the wrong side of the war. Slaves were often later (if they survive long enough) accepted into the society and over time they would become fully assimilated into the society - some would even rise to become very respected people. You can find some interesting facts on this subject here: https://octavia.net/slavery-in-anglo-saxon-england/ https://octavia.net/slavery-in-anglo-saxon-england/
marcus_holmes 6y ago
There's a difference, though - the Romans and Normans took over the government, but left the existing population largely intact. The Saxons and Danes moved in, displacing/killing/enslaving the existing population and replacing it with their own people.
- cmrdporcupine 6y ago
  It's not clear that the Romans behaved this way in Britain or not, but they certainly did not in Gaul. They acted there in a way that might be considered genocide today, with massacres and mass enslavement of the population, and within two or three centuries the Gaulish languages and most cultural practices were extinct. In Britain this was not really accomplished because Roman presence was newer and relatively thin on the ground. Brittonic languages persisted, but there definitely was a strong cultural assimilation, and the upper classes were very focused on Latin speaking. Even at the time the West Germanic tribes invaded en masse the people there probably thought of themselves as equally British and Roman. It seems to me that the "Welsh" ("others" in Germanic) and "British" identity were formed more as a product of the Saxon invasion, long after the Western Roman empire had left.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    I think it's more about the population displacement. The Romans still didn't move large numbers of their population to Gaul, even if they butchered the Gauls. In Britain this certainly didn't happen, the Gaelic population remained, although the Romans did destroy the druids, famously cleansing the druidic religious centre on Anglesea by killing everyone and burning everything. The language changed over decades as the upper classes became Romanised (and in the same way Normanised a thousand years later), with Latin/French becoming the courtly language and Gaelic/Saxon the commoner's language. Until finally English emerges as a bastardised combination of all of them. Whereas in the Danelaw the invaders changed the language and culture in a single generation wherever they took over. Though it's interesting that on the Isle of Man the Viking raiders only killed the men, and settled down on the island with the Manx women, resulting in a Gaelic-speaking Danish culture. There are places in Scotland where this happened too. It's a different combination from the Danelaw, where the settlers brought their own women and the English were displaced completely. "Britain" is a Romanised corruption of the pre-Roman Gaelic name for the island, "Prydwen". The British identity was already well established before the Romans. They became the "Romano-British" under Roman rule, still speaking Gaelic, and then the Welsh as they were displaced by the incoming Saxons (and still speaking Gaelic!). The Welsh identity is definitely a product of the Saxon invasion, as you say, including the massive still-smouldering resentment of the Saxons (they refer to England as "Lloegyr" which I was told by a Welsh historian means "lost lands" but that doesn't seem to be accurate).
cafard 6y ago
Neat matching of username to comment!
ramblerman 6y ago
I don’t think op was trying to start a greatest victim/oppressor discussion. He pointed out that Valhalla the game left a lot out, and probably isn’t very historically accurate when it comes to Viking conduct.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

peteretep 6y ago

> That's how things were done back then And by “back then” we mean prior to about 1920

cafard 6y ago
Are you sure you don't mean 2120?
matkoniecz 6y ago
In 1939 an European country invaded another European countries with goal of murdering and enslaving population living there. Years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_... did similar thing in Iraq. (there are many other examples, I am not going to list all of them)
- peteretep 6y ago
  In 1940 this was considered remarkable ... 50 years before that, not so much

JetSetWilly 6y ago

> I've read a number historians now saying that Viking raiders were neither more cruel, nor more violent than the others by the standards of those times, just the history we know was written by the other side Well, anglo saxon england wasn't a big fan of slavery, in fact the christian world in general wasn't and the church did a lot to combat it. And it was the vikings raiding anglo saxon england, not the other way around. So while you can always find historians to say, that all cultures are the same because of of various unconvincing whatboutery reasons, I think from our current understanding, between those two peoples at that moment in time, one side really was worse behaved.

cmrdporcupine 6y ago
Mass slavery of the Roman form wasn't "popular" among the West Germanic tribes because they had their own system of subjugation of a more feudal model, or at least something transitional between the classic Germanic class system (king, nobility karl/jarl, freemen, laymen) and what became feudalism. Or rather, after their brutal occupation and displacement of the Romano-Britons they came to emulate the Franks (the most successful post-Roman polity in Europe) in the structure of their economy. Think Serfs rather than Slaves. Slaves in the Roman system could be freed and become Roman citizens. In fact it was rather common after a generation or two. Peasants were peasants forever. Not saying one is more just than the other, but Christian influence in Europe certainly hadn't made for a more just system. Just a more theologically based one (God chose your King and Lord)
ivanhoe 6y ago
In early days many Britons were enslaved by invading Saxon forces, although slavery in Ancient/Early Middle Age times was in many ways different then what we usually expect based of what we know of slavery in US. It wasn't really based on race/ethnicity/religion as much as being out of luck and owing money, or being simply on the wrong side of the war. Slaves were often later (if they survive long enough) accepted into the society and over time they would become fully assimilated into the society - some would even rise to become very respected people. You can find some interesting facts on this subject here: https://octavia.net/slavery-in-anglo-saxon-england/ https://octavia.net/slavery-in-anglo-saxon-england/

marcus_holmes 6y ago

There's a difference, though - the Romans and Normans took over the government, but left the existing population largely intact. The Saxons and Danes moved in, displacing/killing/enslaving the existing population and replacing it with their own people.

cmrdporcupine 6y ago
It's not clear that the Romans behaved this way in Britain or not, but they certainly did not in Gaul. They acted there in a way that might be considered genocide today, with massacres and mass enslavement of the population, and within two or three centuries the Gaulish languages and most cultural practices were extinct. In Britain this was not really accomplished because Roman presence was newer and relatively thin on the ground. Brittonic languages persisted, but there definitely was a strong cultural assimilation, and the upper classes were very focused on Latin speaking. Even at the time the West Germanic tribes invaded en masse the people there probably thought of themselves as equally British and Roman. It seems to me that the "Welsh" ("others" in Germanic) and "British" identity were formed more as a product of the Saxon invasion, long after the Western Roman empire had left.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  I think it's more about the population displacement. The Romans still didn't move large numbers of their population to Gaul, even if they butchered the Gauls. In Britain this certainly didn't happen, the Gaelic population remained, although the Romans did destroy the druids, famously cleansing the druidic religious centre on Anglesea by killing everyone and burning everything. The language changed over decades as the upper classes became Romanised (and in the same way Normanised a thousand years later), with Latin/French becoming the courtly language and Gaelic/Saxon the commoner's language. Until finally English emerges as a bastardised combination of all of them. Whereas in the Danelaw the invaders changed the language and culture in a single generation wherever they took over. Though it's interesting that on the Isle of Man the Viking raiders only killed the men, and settled down on the island with the Manx women, resulting in a Gaelic-speaking Danish culture. There are places in Scotland where this happened too. It's a different combination from the Danelaw, where the settlers brought their own women and the English were displaced completely. "Britain" is a Romanised corruption of the pre-Roman Gaelic name for the island, "Prydwen". The British identity was already well established before the Romans. They became the "Romano-British" under Roman rule, still speaking Gaelic, and then the Welsh as they were displaced by the incoming Saxons (and still speaking Gaelic!). The Welsh identity is definitely a product of the Saxon invasion, as you say, including the massive still-smouldering resentment of the Saxons (they refer to England as "Lloegyr" which I was told by a Welsh historian means "lost lands" but that doesn't seem to be accurate).

cafard 6y ago

Neat matching of username to comment!

ramblerman 6y ago

I don’t think op was trying to start a greatest victim/oppressor discussion. He pointed out that Valhalla the game left a lot out, and probably isn’t very historically accurate when it comes to Viking conduct.