Why are Vikings venerated so much?
They weren't nice, they weren't cultured, they weren't worth ANYTHING. Yet people focus on them with the same sort of puerile psychology found in Chad worship. Why?
They had culture. Look at forn seidr and all their skaldic poetry. Look at their wood, stone, and metalwork.
They're venerated because never has any group of people (who wasn't from rome) throughly subjugated europe, and objectively they were handsome. Compared to Non-germanic skulls, Scandinavia skulls exhibit a high level of facial symmetry. Plus, thanks to a warm period, the vikes grew taller than most continentals. And as their society was merit driven (yeah, the modern Scandinavian obsession with taking part in society goes back further than this); a rando peasant could, through guile and bravery, become an actual owner of a farm across the ocean, or enough gold to buy one in Scandinavia. Anyone who wanted to could fuck off and live somewhere else, or just steal shit until their problems were fixed.
It's any "barbarians take over" story. The Vikings are essentially the Amorites of medieval europe. Plus they built better boats for Atlantic/river voyages than anyone else.
And the reason nobody hates them is because the modern practitioners of forn seidr are not suicide bombers, and instead stress the equality of women and importance of science. We hate dunecoon barbs because they're still around, and ironically They're emigrating to the hearth of the northmen.
>>1061150
why do you make this thread every day?
literally nobody in history was nice and we love them all the more for it
>>1061150
I don't know either.
Or rather, I don't know why people love the Vikings but not the Sycthians, Huns, Mongols, Tutsi, Pashtun, Tuaregs, Boko Haram, Somali warbands and pirates, ISIS...
I mean, you can pick favorites but I don't see how you can love some of those and absolutely hate the others.
>>1061150
>pale snownigs make busts out of bronze
>bronze toned romans make busts out of white marble
why
cause they were adventurous, brave and iconic, and they influenced global politics.
>>1061235
Is this a new form of bait?
This whole idea of viking heritage and modern Scandinavians being viking descendants is why. It's the last small slice of culture that the poor folks can hold onto, but goodness knows how long that will last before the refugees and muslims take that away, too. People want to hold onto some sort of nationalistic pride without being outright nationalistic of their country, so instead they claim they are a part of a culture and civilization that used to be in their land a long time ago. So basically thank the Scandinavians.
>>1061216
>Viking
>Culture
>>1061255
It's pretty old, m8.
>>1061291
>>1061292
They should just be seen as another group of migrators, like the Lombards or the Visigoths
>>1061294
>>1061302
The difference between Romans and Norsemen is that Romans were civilized from all points of view.
>>1061272
But that's fucking wrong. Swedes are more proud of the Caroleans, Stormaktstiden and Danes are more proud of Kalmar Union and the 15th century in general
>>1061313
Romans were the literal definition of civilization. If you weren't Roman, by definition you were uncivilized.
>>1061319
Viking love seems to be more of a German and '""""German"""""-American" thing, yeah. Or just a Western white thing now.
>>1061235
who doesnt love the Scythians?
>>1061328
The popularity of Scythians has waxed and waned in different times and places, much like the Mongols. Right now they're coming back in fashion, especially in Eastern Europe.
They had pointy hats, went on boat trips and wuz columbus before columbus and shit.
>>1061150
A relic of German romanticism that lingered until they became a symbol of the heavy metal subculture, which defined them in current imagination as manly, hardcore, and independent for a generation of outcast westerners that now flock to the internet.
Their culture expanded from the irrelevant shithole that was Scandinavia in just a few centuries to extend from Canada to the Volga. They were influential in many areas, encouraging trade, founding cities, and even giving rise to new states. They had some nice art, interesting mythology, and some other interesting stuff like runestones.
They weren't especially great warriors and they're hardly 'admirable' in any real way, but you can hardly deny that they're unique and interesting.
>>1061287
Vikings were norse, and thus part of the Norse culture. I assume you're arguing semantics because vikingr literally just means "one who voyages overseas", so Vikings were probably a subculture of norse, like how there's always a weird derivative culture for the military
>>1061396
So of they weren't such great warriors, why was there a varangian guard? I know Byzantine poltics can be a little cloak-and-dagger but I doubt they'd hire out northmen unless they were good enough to justify the cost. Or was it just that Scandinavians could be bought for way less and they were just outsourcing?
It doesn't really make sense to me either, OP. Here are my thoughts.
Lots of cultures that were war-like in the past continue to be venerated. The Magyars (Hungarians) consider themselves descendant from Huns, Greeks remember the time of Alexander, British are proud of colonial times when they conquered large parts of foreign continents. I think humans in general tend to want to seem tough, and not like pushovers, and when they look at their heritage, they identify with the periods where their ancestral culture dominated other regions. Of course this doesn't make much sense objectively and at other times they themselves were (or are being) dominated. It's probably just a way for them to feel better about themselves and try to be proud of their own perceived identity.
It seems common for people in English speaking countries (US, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, Australia, South Africa, etc.) to look back fondly of the Vikings. Outside of Europe, these places were heavily peopled by people of either British or Germanic ancestry. Even though many of these lands were the primary targets of the Vikings, some believe they have Viking ancestors due to the raids, or claim some association by being a nearby/similar culture that either developed from a common source or was influenced by Scandinavian rule.
That said, whether the Vikings were "cultured" or not is debatable. They clearly possessed their own art and culture, who's to say if that culture was superior or inferior to others at the time. They are just one of many groups of people that made a lasting impact on history, and we shouldn't assume modern people of Scandinavian descent act anything like the Vikings. Clearly, Nordic countries are some of the most prosperous and peaceful of nations. Perhaps that also has something to do with people who take pride in that shared lineage.
>>1061325
Great thing about Vikings is that they got right the fuck around with the rape and stuff so pretty much all European whites (read as: non-Slavs) can claim some sort of Scandinavian genetic link
>>1061422
Well I suppose they did have a kind of mobile warrior culture, so plenty of them would have been great warriors and would have been useful as mercenaries. But generally when they actually came to face an organized army in Europe they tended to be beaten back pretty easily. I don't really know much about this though.
>>1061459
I think you're right they tended to be mainly successful at raiding small villages near coastlines, primarily targeting monasteries and the like with little resistance. They did set up some more permanent settlements though, that eventually were absorbed into nearby nations.
>>1061440
>non-slavs
Russians and Western Slavs can claim Scandinavian ancestry better than the average southern European.
>>1061235
good manga
![Viking_expansion[1]_3.png](https://i.imgur.com/JrEWDMW.png "Viking_expansion[1]_3.png")
>it's another viking-hate thread
>>1061248
Its almost like ancient people had to make do with the materials they had available
>>1062278
What the fuck is this map? What do those colors mean?
>vikings in northern Persia and Azerbaidjan
Snownigger what?
>>1062415
As far as I can tell, the green is the extent of their raiding, but not settlement. They did raid the Caspian coasts. The other colours I guess are the extent of their settlement, though I'm not sure what the yellow is supposed to be.
>>1062452
>though I'm not sure what the yellow is supposed to be
I'd guess the Normans
>>1062415
>>1062452
it is raiding
The descendants of Vikings are pretty successful and seen as attractive, that's probably part of the reason. Saying your ancestors were raped by Vikings is almost a compliment while saying your ancestors were raped by Mongols is like an insult.
>>1062477
>11th century Viking conquest of sicily and naples
Wait what
>>1062511
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_expansion#Italy
>>1061216
You were doing good up until
>muh skull shape
Fucking Teutonic autists have to ruin everything with your stupid eugenics theory. This is why no one likes you
>>1063236
Read the link, retard
Same reason as the Normans, Huns, and other ethnicities with unremarkable cultures - they moved around and fucked shit up, hence winning a place for themselves in history
>>1063246
It says the vikings raided it, not settled it, the Normans settled it
Read your own links before you post them
>>1063271
Now go and read the next two paragraphs
>>1061235
vikings are popular in the west because vikings played one of the most fundamental roles in shaping the west. and i don't think the average person hates most of those groups.
>>1061291
the difference is that one of those happened a thousand years ago and the other is present day
>>1061150
They have the same allure as mongols in a way.
They're barbarian assholes, yet they do everything so well that you can't help but be intrigued. They're like the rockstars of medieval times.
>>1061150
Actually what is a viking & where did they come from?
Norman?
Saxon?
If geat went on a shopping trip across the north sea would he be called a viking
>>1061216
>throughly subjugated europe
>beat up monks and other defenseless people
>ran away when anyone presented a serious challenge
>lost to saxons
>>1061272
Does every thread have to have the token nutjob? Can't we have a discussion just once without boring, ill thought out ideology?
>>1065149
>falling for b8
>>1065149
>Implying he's crazy
>Implying scandanavian culture isn't being gutted
Vikings were everywhere. As far as the middle east and famed as the elite bodyguard of the Byzies, there are traces of them all over the place. That combined with Dumbass genre fiction being popular with the lowest common denominator has made them look like sooper cool, edgy, Christian killing badasses.
>>1061150
why are non-scandinavians so fucking butthurt about vikings? most scandis don't care about them, you people have some inferiority complex
>>1065274
most scandis only care about fucking each other in the butt or being culturally enriched by ahmed or jamal's sandnigger cock then their viking or lutheran heritage
>>1061216
>thoroughly subjugated Europe
Hahaha no, the Mongols and the Huns both subjugated much more of Europe harder, but besides the Romans nobody had actually thoroughly subjugated Europe.
