Some say that Norsemen used to be peaceful traders before going batshit and starting raids but that doesn't make much sense the fact that blood feuds were a thing (in fact that was the reason why every free man etiher carried a weapon or was within few steps of one) and a lot of their gods are violent clearly shows that they weren't a culture of dindunuffins. It seems like people who tried to show that Norsemen were more than just raiders went into another extreme and painted them as hippies who never attacked unprovoked and cuddlied puppies. Are historians full of shit?
Trying to learn anything from the internet, espescially 4chan is fucking stupid. I can even begin to explain how retarded everyone is when discussing the vikings. Its almost always biased Scandinavians praising them or wannabee nords who decided to bring the vikings down if they couldn't join them.
Basically the vikings is a no-go subject on /his/.
1. "Vikings" were never a group of people. Viking was something you did, a multi-purpose thing which basically meant "sailing near the coast to different places", it carries no implication of the purpose of the journey, it could be for raiding, trading, establishing relations, diplomacy or just sight-seeing or whatever
2. Every "free man" did probably carry a weapon in the 9th-10th century, this was because people lived closer to nature and took care of themselves in a way that modern citydwellers probably don't understand. A knife and an axe was an everyday survival tool.
3. "Norsemen" was never a consolidated group of people. This was before cars, railroads, steamboats and the internet. The people who lived a few miles away from you might belong to an entirely different cultural subgroup. There weren't danes or swedes or brits, there was only a clusterfuck of different tribes with chieftains fighting each other for power.
4. Try reading a book, 4chan memes are not a good source of information
>>795873
>Go into battle without chest armor
>Get hit by one single arrow
What are you gonna do now faggot?
>>795873
Germanic paganism was actually pretty tame compared to things like Celtic paganism.
and>>796131 this.
>>796142
that image is bullshit and you shouldn't take it seriously. pic related is what they would've worn, if not much lighter, with a nasal or spectacle helm, and a spear/sword and shield. maybe chainmail.
>>796043
since when has anybody here been unreasonable in praising them? its almost entirely retarded faggots shitposting against them vs people who just respect them for what they were.
>>796142
Well considering something like 50-90% of Saxons or Norsemen in that time owned no chest armor it's not much of a problem.
>>796285
owning no chest armor is not the same as going shirtless and showing off your manly, oiled muscles that give me homoerotic feelings anon
>>796325
Do you expect a woolen tunic to stop an arrow? You're just gonna ruin it with cuts and such.
>>796331
Having a bit of padding could stop an arrow. Stop playing video games.
>>796360
Shoulder padding is a 1990s thing not a 790s thing.
gambeson armor pre 1000: Zero evidence as far as I am aware.
>>796373
I know, but it was around in some form. No evidence suggests the vikings wore it, but I'm hoping they had a bit of common sense.
>>796388
Well they had a shield.
>>796373
>gambeson armor pre 1000: Zero evidence as far as I am aware.
You're not very aware then, given that we have Romans using padded arm defenses, cataracts with padded armor, Persians making use of padded armor, the linothorax, and god only knows what else.
>>797055
My bad, I meant in Medieval Europe.
>>796258
Celtic mythology is awesome, more people should get into it.
>>797187
Given that literal stone age societies had it, and mail, a far older, and more expensive form of armor survived from the celts into the renaissance- They probably had it.
The knowledge wouldn't go away, and there's little reason to stop using padded armor.
This is all conjecture though, so you could very well be right.
>>797234
and had A LOT of human sacrifice
>>796043
A lot of people have no fucking idea what they're talking about is all. Some people love to fethisize one group of people, or some.
>>795873
>are historians full of shit?
The ideal death of a norseman was in battle. Important notice: norsemen, aka specifically men who followed said religion. This was the glorified form of death, but most didn't die in battle.
"Vikings" had a fully functional society just like everyone else up north, full of their own culture. Raiding was one thing, not everyone fucking did it, it's just what they're remembered for in way too many people's minds.. There were traders all over the place. Watch a documentary or something.
