did female vikings participate in the raping?
In reality they were viking futas
>>1026166
Revisionist scum, all vikings were actually viqueens - the men stayed at home while the women did all the fighting.
What the fuck did you think happened? Only the viking women raped.
Yes. They were just on the receiving end.
>>1026166
That image irks me more than it should.
>>1026221
This.
They would raid coastal towns and fuck young males up the arse.
>>1026361
>2016
>still being a misogynist
female vikings existed in large numbers, why are you surprised? If the harshest environment on the planet produced the world's strongest men shouldn't it also produce the world's strongest women? Get over it you gamergate loser
I want a viking woman to roughly take me
>>1026166
Yes, they probably enjoyed making young Christian men give into lust by force.
>>1026497
No they did not.
Knowing women lack of combat capability is not hating women you moron.
Women were not involved or anywhere near equal to men In combat.
>>1026166
>did female vikings participate in the raping?
Only the black ones.
>>1026166
Look, just cut to the chase and give me a fapfic or something already
>>1026510
I honestly can't believe anyone fell for a bait this obvious
>>1026633
Meh bored at work keeps me entertained.
>>1026497
>scandinavia
>harshest environment
>harsh at all
Being raped by a strong raider bitch is my fetish.
>Vikings
GET THE FUCK OFF OF MY COAST YOU SNOWNIGGERS.
ITT: fanfic.
>>1026790
I see no fanfic here
someone post a fanfic about mighty viking women raping the meek Christian men so I can nut
>>1026166
They didn't even participate in the fighting. Lay off the hollywood.
>>1026818
literally can't find one on sexstories.com
>>1026818
>viking women raping the meek Christian men
mfw vikings got their ass kicked whenever they faced a real army and not old priests.
>>1026858
muh Valhalla
>>1026166
No.
Most of the time, they had their hands full with managing the holdings of their husbands. You could make a case that they did their rapings using economics rather than with sex, but then you have Grunhild the mother of kings.
>>1026510
I don't think they were claiming that women are just as good as men. Women being weaker doesn't mean female vikings are an impossibility.
>>1026497
>Scandinavia
>harsh
lol
>>1027054
make the subject of shieldmaiden'/s affections 18 or under
>>1026497
GO HOME HISTORY GIRL
>>1027054
Give her boots with heels of some sort.
>>1027132
Don't care about age, but make him a NEET monk who just finished memeing with snails.
>>1027157
Do it anon,but make it historically accurate
>>1027157
Fucking this. Do it anon.
>tfw your young, tight arse will never be forcefully penetrated by a qt viking futa
Fun fact:
When looking at skeletons of Vikings, women are actually more masculine while men are more effeminate.
>Skelleterne afslorer en anden forskel på os og vikingerne: Mænds og kvinders ansigter lignede hinanden mere i vikingetiden, end de gor i dag.
>»Skeletterne fra vikingetiden er faktisk vanskelige at konsbestemme. Mandekranierne er lidt mere feminine, og kvindekranierne har været mere maskuline, end de er i dag. Det gælder selvfolgelig ikke alle skeletter fra vikingetiden, men generelt er vikingetidens skeletter svære at konsbestemme,« fortæller skeletforskeren.
>Hun forklarer uddybende, at kæbepartiet og ojenbrynsbuerne hos vikingekvinden ofte er kraftige, mens vikingemandens kæbeparti og ojenbrynsbuer er mere feminine, end forskerne er vant til, når de konsbestemmer skeletter fra andre perioder.
>>1027157
When you write this, make sure to give it to us you memer.
>>1026503
this so much.
big, strong women who can kick ass are so fucking sexy.
>>1027900
>women are actually more masculine while men are more effeminate
this seems to be a repeating theme with northern european men
>tfw no high test vikingfu
How often did vikings sell other vikings into slavery btw?
>>1027121
~2000 years ago
>>1026497
> This is what happens when people watch "Vikings" instead of reading history.
>>1027921
How's this so far?
You scrambled behind the pillar when the door burst open with a crash. If only you had time to put out the light, but the noise sent you tumbling from your easel out of instinct, fearing the abbot had found you scribbling away at the margins again. Not short on stupid bravery you chanced a quick glance around the corner only to dart back into hiding, a cold sweat running down your neck and into your palms. Just what in God's holy name was that? The distant rousing of screams sent shivers down to your knees, and you held them tight to keep her from hearing them knock. There was a woman in the scriptorium with you, and no matter the armor or warrior trousers and tatters on her you knew by terrifying instinct it was a woman.
>>1028059
Was it a raid? Was she a raider? You tore at your scalp as if the panic could tonsure you. But none of it mattered when you heard her snicker, then laugh that womanly, pleasant, terrible laugh. "What is this, a hare? With an axe?" she snorted, the words clenching you with burning embarassment. Of course she wouldn't understand, a plebeian, a heathen, a woman. Not even the abbot understood. Even the other monks, on and on with their snails! Stupid and brave, you jumped to your feet and lifted your shoulders and pointed with righteous indignation. She just stared, blinked a few times, and let a wry, confused smile creep across her cut lips. And in the end there was a sword at your chest sending you scrambling backwards and onto the floor.
>>1028061
Bemused, she just stared with fascination at the idiot who went on and on about his rabbits. You even blushed and looked away, not only in shame but in a sudden fit of admiration for such a cute expression. Until, that is, she started snickering, burying her face into her sleeve. That was your chance to scramble away, but she was faster, and put her heeled boot down between your legs pinning your long robe to the floor. That's when she gasped, and dared you to close your legs with her sword hovering against your knee and prying them apart. Pushing tight against your robe was all your lust bared shamelessly for her to see. You squirmed and yelled at her to get away, but with another step she pinned your shoulders to the floor as well, her heel sliding up your chest and up underneath your jaw. Forced to look up at her sneering face, you felt her sword tap your cock gently, and watched her giggle as it bobbed and strained against your robe.
>>1028059
>>1028061
>>1028064
yikes
>>1028068
That's a no then?
>>1028078
I haven't read it yet
hold on
>>1028059
fuck this nerd masochist rape fantasy shit make it a fucking tavern brawl that leads to an orgy
>>1026858
aye....
>remove Lutefisk
>>1028089
Gonna have to wait your turn, other anons wanted their monk MC.
>>1028059
>>1028061
>>1028064
Please include foot play
>>1028064
>>1028115
Don't normally write foot play, but how's this
Whether it was her heels digging into your throat, her giggling, smiling face staring at you, or the threat of her blade so close to your manhood, your cock couldn't help but stiffen even further and fence boldly with her sword. Suddenly there was a tearing sound, and you shivered at the touch of cold steel against your naked erection. Finally the laughing stopped, this tie replaced with a pleasant gasp of surprise as she looked down. Removing her weapon from your crotch the woman tapped your cheek this time with an odd order. Unable to resist, but cursing her with every quiet, hitched breath, you helped her pull her feet from her boot. Relieved to find her weight off your throat, you nonetheless choked on your breath as you leaned forward off the ground, following her feet dancing its way down your chest and over your cock. The first word of protest had her tease the tip of her sword at your lips, and the first jerk of excitement had her tease the tip of your cock with her heel, rolling the hard member in small circles before sliding her foot down the length and underside, pushing it against your stomach.
>>1027900
Nobody speaks that snow patois
>>1027936
She's too fat
>>1028164
C-continue, you are doing the Lord's work.
>>1028097
>remove Lutefisk
everyone can agree on this
>>1028164
>>1028180
This should be it for the footsies, though I might stop here anyway. I'll save this and pick it up for another rainy day if I remember.
Soon her sword drifted away, her attention rapt and honed on the dance of your cock under her foot. While no where near as bright as yours, the warrior woman's cheeks began to glow as well, and the heat surged right down to her toes, pinching at your foreskin as they curled and kneading the underside of the sensitive tip whenever her heel rolled down the excess skin. You again launched your feeble tirade, though not every word was so hateful and pointed as you uncontrollably mewled under her playful foot. But she did take offense, and taking hold of your scalp she pulled your face into her crotch, and demanded such crude obscenities that your poor cock couldn't help but throb in excitement. Your hands clawed at her ass, biting into her trousers, and pulled them inch by tight inch down her hips as she began to stroke your shaft with the ball of her foot and her toes rolling foreskin.
>tfw no viking gf to femdom you
>>1026497
>>1026166
>Tfw no viking qt raider will ever rape you
>>1026661
1000 years ago yeah. Probably.
Harshest place on earth? no.
Among the top 10 harshest places that were inhabited? yeah, maybe.
>>1027900
Hvorfor oversætter du det ikke til engelsk, de fatter det jo ikke?
>>1030925
>Among the top 10 harshest places that were inhabited? yeah, maybe.
Scandinavia is nowhere near the top 10 harshest place in Europe, let alone the world.
>>1027900
>female scientist
Well shit what a surprise.
>>1026661
It's not harsh because of the environment, it's harsh because there are Vikings everywhere and they think their way into the best afterlife is fighting and killing.
If anything, how nice the environment is just causes there to be more murderous Vikings.
>>1026166
yes they used wooden strap-ons there is document about it somewhere on the internet.
>>1031058
>so much backtracking
>>1026497
>tfw you will never get killed by qt viking girl
>tfw she will never open your belly with a knife
>tfw she will never put her freezing feet into your belly to warm them up
>>1027157
THIS
ALSO RABBITS
>>1026166
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8M9J4szTTY
>>1031215
apologist
Tacitus talked about a northern Germanic tribe where women ruled.
So Sweden Yes was already a thing thousands of years ago.
And how he described Finland was basically a hunter gatherer society.
>>1031322
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitones
>>1028220
Just then as you and her were lost in the moment, as quickly as it had come it vanished as the abbot opened the door and the portly man demanded she-viking to relent. For he did not consent to such acts in the Lord's Scriptorium. She turns around pants around her ankles and charges at the Abbot. The Abbot with inhuman speed dashes toward her like lighting. She stabs him straight through the gut. The Abbot slumps over, dead, mostly. She returns to you but you attempt to scramble away as snails are slowly making their way out of your pockets. It is at this time as you hold your snails that you see the Abbot begin to jiggle, first his tummy, then his flabby arms, then the multitude of chins that were once resting beneath his face begin shaking violently. By the power of God he exclaims as he rises, floating in the air two inches above the ground. He begins to gain mass, shaking ever more violently hes becoming larger and larger. She is visibly struggling to resist his gravitational pull. soon all the books and lecterns are drawn to him like magnets, his mass putting the quantum relativity of the sun to shame. As she flies towards him at the speed of sound you find that the only thing keeping you on the ground is the snail brigade that has made a chain of snails around you and coated you with their slime.
As she draws near the Abbot lifts his robe and she is impaled on his five foot donger. Straight through the midsection. The snail slime isn't strong enough, you begin to feel the pull of the large Abbot who is now bringing the longship out of the sea. Soon you too are impaled. You watch as the Abbot grows and grows attracting Saxons from across the Sea and Celts from Ireland.
So big, so holy.
And so it was, The Abbot of the of Lindesfarne became the Isle of England.
The end.
>>1027116
it kinda does
>>1032775
Please finish actual story and put it somewhere. This was 2hawt4me.
>>1027959
1000-2000 years ago it was actually a lot warmer and the climate was closer of modern day northern france than today's scandinavia
>>1033373
No. There have been a lot of periods of warmer/colder weather.
It was possible to bring armies from Sweden to Denmark over the sea, due to it freezing over (there are both accounts of this from the late medieval period, due to the Little Ice Age but also from earlier tribes walking over the seas).
Also, global temperature doesn't indicate local temperature. It snowed yesterday/tonight here in Sweden as an example, even though this winter has been kinda warm.
>>1033570
Also, it is worth noting that the debate is contrasted to the Little Ice Age and they claim that middle medieval period (1000-1100) could have been as hot as today or 1-2 degrees hotter, in some parts of the world. It is still debated whether it was truly global or not.
It is worth noting that the Swedish temperature has gone down to -20 degrees celcius in Småland as an example (relatively far down), -30 degrees in other places, really cold winters in Götaland has been around -40 and the coldest temperatures in Norrland has been down to -50.
Saying that Sweden wasn't dire due to relatively "warm" weather is silly when the winters may drop down to -20 C.
>>1033627
>Saying that Sweden wasn't dire due to relatively "warm" weather is silly when the winters may drop down to -20 C.
and what's so harsh in that? it's like that for like a month or two a year, no big deal since you can just sit inside and keep the fire burning. and i live in north, it's even less so in skåne or denmark that were the most populous areas during early medieval. most of the time it's just as warm and at midsummer even hotter than in south.
>>1033662
If you're going to revise the claim from: "it was warm when the vikings lived" to "winters aren't bad" is kinda ridiculous.
First of all, you're making a harder claim to defend.
Secondly, all it takes is a bad harvest to wind up in starvation mode during the winter. Winters can be very long and the period of no food production may be much longer than the long winters.
You cannot compare you contemporary access to resources like bananas imported from some Amercian subject.
They didn't have potatoes or modern crops, the same kind of heating we have etc.
I don't argue that vikings were hardened due to rough winters or anything. I just state that living in Scandinavia was considerably rougher than other places. In fact, the idea that nations progress due to rough climates is eniterily backwards. It is nations with a lot of wealthy resources that enter rapid growth and development.
Sweden is basically prosperous because the fall of Rome enabled Sweden to enter the medieval period (as an independent Christian nation) and development of agriculture from like 1000-1600 and caught up with the rest of the world perfectly in time with the renaissance.
So basically:
TL;DR: vikings were degenerate savages living in a hard environment until they became cultivated enough for you to not starve during winters.
>>1033714
>If you're going to revise the claim from:
i'm not. it still was warmer back then. even modern winters aren't really bad and at around 900AD they were even less so. öresund freezing so that army could cross it on foot was really, really extraordinary event. little ice age was completely different and happened over half a thousand years after the viking age was over.
>>1033714
>all it takes is a bad harvest
and no. that's exactly the reason why nordic food culture is so different from mainland europe. southerners were completely dependent on wheat but since the harvests were (and are) small and scarce this far north local cuisine is based just as much if not more on fish and dairy products than rye, turnips and barley.
>>1033732
Okay.
My point is that even if it was more rare it could still happen.
Let's say we have a four periods with average temps (example): -10, 0, 10, 0. Then average temp is 0 degrees.
Let's say all periods increase with two degrees:
-8, 2, 12, 2. Then the average temperature has increased with 2 degrees. The winters become shorter etc., but it doesn't mean that it was somehow a good condition for agriculture etc., which will enable a more stable food income than basically hunter-gathering methods (not saying they were hunter-gatherers).
I was a bit too hyperbolic because I am tired of viking circlejerks, quite literally considering the fan fic above.
I might respond more properly when I'm on my computer and can look up links/facts.
>>1033790
Also, it might be worth considering why the North has such a low capita per area compared to like Britain which is better suited for agriculture.
>>1033797
that's exactly the reason. scandinavia couldn't provide that much population but that doesn't mean that the life was any harder for the ones that it could. more like opposite, less mouths means less things to worry about.
>>1026497
scandinavian settlers aren't viking anon. there was a lot fo scandinavian female SETTLERS, not vikings.
>>1033830
Yes. I am aware, I referred to "the vikings" as the settlers due to it being called "vikingatiden" (which is misguided).
I remain agnostic about whether there were female raiders or not, but I consider it a possibility.
>>1033817
I find this inference a bit misguided.
Isn't it sound to assume there is a correlation between how hard it is to maintain a life in a place and how mant will survive/settle there, and vive versa?
Some people may judge that harder places are livable, but they will be in the minority, not solely becase of the available resources but the extreme sacrfices some people are ready to make, or having to make due to being pushed further away.
It seems like your assumption would ultimately lead, if we use it universally, that all cultures have it equally easy?
>>1033883
it's not any harder. it's just less abundant.
>>1033887
There are many reasons to why people might live in rough environments. Your argument doesn't make any sense if you actually think about it.
>>1033915
but scandinavia isn't a rough environment.there are hard places too, but scandinavia isn't one of them. getting food out of the ground is just as easy as anywhere else, you just get it a bit less so you can't feed that many people with it.
>>1028173
for you
>>1033927
Seriously, is this what you are arguing?
>It was harder to live there so less people lived there so it was as easy to live there as anywhere else.
It is retarded since it can be applied to any harsh environment, also it still assumes that it is hard to live there.
>>1028061
>>1028064
>>1028164
>>1028220
>>1032775
>>1033969
but it isn't harder to live here. it's not about what it takes to get food, it's about when you can do that what it takes. in mainland europe you can get two or even three harvest's per year but here it's only one. but amount and difficulty of labor to get that one is roughly similar.
>>1033980
>but amount and difficulty of labor to get that one is roughly similar.
I doubt it. There is literally no reason to believe this.
>>1033991
doubt what you want. there is no reason to believe otherwise. only difference to southern lands is that the growing season is shorter, there isn't any magic in this land that makes it somehow harder to put the seed in the ground and harvest the ready crops off.
>>1027134
Hahaha
>>1034001
>only difference to southern lands is that the growing season is shorter.
Between 1960 and 2005 the average days with snow in Götaland was around 100~50.
That is 3-2 months of snow.
So expecting a quarter of the year being snow covered cannot have been unusual.
Sweden has very little arable land compared to Continental Europe.
Also, the fact that Sweden haven't a huge population like other countries should imply that they didn't live in prosperity, which should mean that it is harder to live in Sweden since they cannot have as many children etc. due to food scarcity.
>It isn't a rough climate if we lower our expectations!
That is a fucking stupid argument. It's like saying
>It wouldn't be rape if you'd just agree to it!
Why are you even trying to argue this point? It seems so useless and futile. Just stop it.
>>1034051
Another argument:
Climates don't become rougher at a certain border. I guess you'd agree that Norrland is a rougher climate somewhere in continental Europe.
So let's say that it becomes "gradually rougher" the further up you go, and then you'd have an intermediate roughness somewhere.
Of course this argument doesn't work fully since there were of course places as the Stockholm region with relatively good prosperity.
However, that isn't to say that people felt forced to go further North/expand into rougher territories.
Samis definitely live in a rougher climate, hence their strange traditions, their heavy reliance on reindeer, their limited population etc.
Why would it NOT be the case that a generally colder country that is worse for growing crops due to winter/worse land wouldn't have more people living in rough climate? It just seems like such an unreasonable thing to say.
>>1034051
>So expecting a quarter of the year being snow covered cannot have been unusual.
climate was warmer back then as i have said already
>which should mean that it is harder to live in Sweden
no it shouldn't. are you seriously saying that thousand people with thousand sacks of grain have it any harder than ten thousand people with ten thousand sacks of grain?
>>1034069
and actually, i would say that the smaller population has it easier. if their crops fail, they can always rely more on fish, wild berries or game and less people will die. but with a lot more people in more urbanized areas? if their harvest goes bad they get it really bad. really, really bad.
>>1034069
>climate was warmer back then as i have said already
This is based on dubious evidence, and as I have already indicated, it would not affect climate enough to change the outcome significantly during the winters etc.
> thousand people with thousand sacks of grain have it any harder than ten thousand people with ten thousand sacks of grain?
No, I am saying that if your land is frozen three months of the year you'll have a harder time collecting enough food.
And it doesn't work by "reducing the population". If you increase the population you also increase the work force. Let's assume that one person can provide for 3 persons in France.
Then if you increase the work force up to 5 persons, they can provide for 15 etc.
And in accordance to basic economic theory, productivity increases with the amount of different labours etc.
But if a person can only provide for two persons, this population will increase slower, due to the working force not being able to provide as much relatively to their size as in other countries.
You're supposed to look at how much each person can produce in THIS way.
There isn't just 10 000 sacks of grain magically appearing from the ground, you know? You have to work for it, and the work you put in to get it may be harder in one country than another.
>>1034102
This is some of the most retarded shit I have ever heard. As populations grow->technology becomes better->more division of labour->more productivity->luxuries->populations grow.
>>1034111
Not that anon, but nice simplified linear history.
>>1034106
>>1034111
it doesn't work like that. there is a limit how much you can rip from the ground with certain level of technology, and both of these populations were stabilized somewhere little below their's. neither was free from eventual famines when their population dropped back to the level that their land was capable of providing.
>>1034120
Yes, it is simplified. It is the basic concepts of Adam Smith (I actually strongly disagree with classical liberals), and even him expanded on it for like five books. Then there have been a lot of criticisms back and forth, and I agree that there isn't necessarily an unlimited amount of resources on the planet. But stating that this isn't a good basis for an analysis is ridiculous.
>>1034125
Sure there may be a level of how much one can rip out the ground with a certain level of technology, but let's review this again:
They have less possible resources to attain.
They have to work harder for an equal amount of food than in other places.
There is a fucking 2-3 months long winter.
Still, my main point was that population growth is usually a sign of prosperity, luxury etc. as I've tried to indicate from the very start.
Having an over-abundance of resources is EASIER than not having it.
Having to not work as much is EASIER than working.
There being a higher population growth in Britain shows that the Britts were more prosperous.
How hard is it to understand?
>>1034140
>Greenland was always colder in winter than Iceland and Norway, and its terrain less hospitable to agriculture. Erosion of the soil was a danger from the beginning, one that the Greenland settlements may not have recognized until it was too late. For an extended time, nonetheless, the relatively warm West Greenland current flowing northwards along the southwestern coast of Greenland made it feasible for the Norse to farm much as their relatives did in Iceland or northern Norway. Palynologists' tests on pollen counts and fossilized plants prove that the Greenlanders must have struggled with soil erosion and deforestation.[14] As the unsuitability of the land for agriculture became more and more patent, the Greenlanders resorted first to pastoralism and then to hunting for their food.[14] But they never learned to use the hunting techniques of the Inuit, one being a farming culture, the other living on hunting in more northern areas with pack ice.
I'd assume that similar problems were present in Scandinavia, just to a lesser extent. As the first step you mentioned was population growth, but in areas such as this it would reach the carrying capacity much quicker than regions further south.
>>1034140
They have to work harder for an equal amount of food than in other places.
no, because they don't NEED equal amount of food.
>There is a fucking 2-3 months long winter.
so? i still don't see what's so horrible in that. you can just sit inside and wait for the spring.
>Having an over-abundance of resources is EASIER than not having it.
but southerners DIDN'T have over-abundance. they had ten times more mouths to feed.
>Having to not work as much is EASIER than working.
yeah, it would. sadly, anyone had to work, no matter where you lived.
>>1034154
And in terms of Greenland this graph is highly relevant.
>>1034159
>equal amount of food than
This is obviously per capita, as I stated earlier.
>you can just sit inside and wait for the spring.
>I don't see how starving is bad, you can just ration your food evenly across the year to survive.
>but southerners DIDN'T have over-abundance. they had ten times more mouths to feed.
They had a bigger population, thus more division of labour, thus more general productivity, thus making it easier to produce food.
The over-abundance thing was meant to mean that having MORE food is better than not. Having a HIGHER food supply is better than not, even if it isn't an over-abundance.
>yeah, it would. sadly, anyone had to work, no matter where you lived.
Yes, but in larger urbanised towns you had more general prosperity, different jobs, higher productivity etc.
A larger population is GOOD since it leads to a higher productivity.
A larger food supply is GOOD since it leads to a higher population.
The other person is at least trying to make viable points, you are just fucking stupid.
>>1034154
>>1034168
Yes, but my argument doesn't necessarily rely on population growth, it was only a statement to show HOW populations grow.
In general a bigger population will lead to a more prosperous society.
If you agree that the population didn't go over a certain limit and agree that a bigger population will lead to more vocations/division of labour, you ought to agree that the North wasn't as prosperous as other regions, and this was mainly a cause of the worse weather/the uninhabitable amount of land.
Also, your graphs have no sources and no actual relevance, they look like something to illustrate a point, and I think I understood that point. I don't know where you get them from.
(Saying this because I don't know whether you try to look scientific or if they are just illustrative)
>>1034184
mainly based by*
>>1034186
mainly caused by**
>>1034184
>This is obviously per capita, as I stated earlier.
then this statement is just false.
>I don't see how starving is bad, you can just ration your food evenly across the year to survive.
what are you talking about? you don't starve at winter in north any more than you do in south. that's why you farmed that grain BEFORE that couple months of depressing darkness.
>They had a bigger population, thus more division of labour, thus more general productivity, thus making it easier to produce food.
but they didn't. they had bigger population so they had more mouths to feed so they needed more food. as i said, there is a limit how much grain you can grow in the ground, no matter how many people you have plowing and sowing it.
>>1034184
>Also, your graphs have no sources and no actual relevance, they look like something to illustrate a point, and I think I understood that point.
I just found the graphs quickly to demonstrate the concept of carrying capacity, it's a well known concept in ecology.
>>1034201
I see, I haven't read any books on ecology, only on economy.
Do you have any good introductory books?
>>1034200
>They have to work harder for an equal amount of food than in other places.
>per capita
So you mean that prosperous communes don't make technological progress and makes it easier to produce food? Like... The plow?
>what are you talking about? you don't starve at winter in north any more than you do in south. that's why you farmed that grain BEFORE that couple months of depressing darkness.
The winter is longer in the north, less things grow in the north etc. Therefore they have to work harder. Being inactive during the winter months isn't really a good thing or can be seen as prosperous (and they probably took care of animals etc. during the winters, or other tasks, so claiming that the winter gave them more spare time wouldn't be accurate).
>t they didn't. they had bigger population so they had more mouths to feed so they needed more food. as i said, there is a limit how much grain you can grow in the ground, no matter how many people you have plowing and sowing it.
A bigger population will inevitably lead to more effective ways to utilise tools etc. Having to cook food for three people instead of two doesn't make a much difference. Both take about the same amount of time.
The same principle holds for a lot of tasks.
The production per capita increases with the size of the population in a certain region.
If you say "no" to that I'll stop responding to you since you're just refusing to accept facts.
>>1034216
>Do you have any good introductory books?
I don't have any particular recommendation, but I'd assume most introductory books would cover the general concepts adequately. It's a broad area of study though, you might find this relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_economics
>>1034235
Thanks, I'll check it out!
>>1034216
>So you mean that prosperous communes don't make technological progress and makes it easier to produce food? Like... The plow?
you seriously believe that viking age north germanics were so primitive savages that they didn't even have plows? they didn't live in isolation you know, no matter did they invent it themselves or not. it's true that more population=more potential inventors, but ideas spread fast.
>The winter is longer in the north, less things grow in the north etc. Therefore they have to work harder.
no. winter is long, true. less things grow in north, true. that means you need bigger fields. but that also means that you don't need to be farming them all the time.
getting a sack of grain in north requires just as much work as getting a sack of grain in south.
there is less people doing that work but there is also less people eating that grain. only real difference is that you need to do all that work at once, you can't scatter it around a year. but it's still not any harder.
