Re: Some gutter trash

Jim Jones wrote:
Arno wrote
David Brown <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Turco wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Turco wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I mean, people still >do< speak English, in Britain...do they not? <g>

Nar, they never did, just some bastardised form of it.

Blame that on those damned Normans, bloody frogs.

Recall, though, that those French invaders from Normandy, had originated
in Scandinavia; thus, they were "bloody Vikings," once upon a time.

Sure, thats where the word Normans comes from, its a contraction of Norse Men.

Of course, "bloody" always had a more literal meaning,
where the violent Vikes were concerned! <g>

And then there's the raping and pillaging in spades.

Their funeral events were a tad over the top too.

Most Vikings expeditions to Britain (and France, and most other
places) were for trade and/or settlement, not for raids or other
violence. They got their historical reputation because many of
their raids were against churches and monasteries, since these had
all the gold. And since virtually the only people who could write
at the time were churchmen and monks, the written history is
severely biased.

Interesting and entirely credible.

Nope, he's forgotten about the sagas. They just had an oral tradition instead.


I haven't forgotten about the sagas. The sagas (both oral and written) had several purposes. They covered religious stories, they had some real history, they celebrated famous Vikings, and they were - perhaps above all else - entertainment. There are plenty of sagas covering wars, battles, and raids - but very little covering such every day events as trading or farming. These are things that everyone knew about and would hardly be a subject for a song or a tale at a king's feast.

Just like the British churches' records, the sagas are therefore very biased in the sort of historical information they provide.

The extent of the Vikings' peaceful (or at least /relatively/ peaceful) dealings in Britain can be seen in the huge influence they left behind - language, place names, peoples names, culture, and descendants, as well as archaeological evidence and non-church writings.

I'm not claiming the Vikings purely were a peaceful people - merely
that they were like most others at the time (they liked to farm good
land, make good trades, and steal from people with lots of gold and
poor defences).

Yea, that was going on for most of human history. The Romans even
build a large empire on that approach, but nobody calls them "bloody".

Plenty do the mongols.


I'm slightly confused by what you write here - it reads as though you think the Mongols called the Romans "bloody", but I'm assuming you meant that the Mongols were another group who have a reputation of being "bloody".

Yes, the Mongols killed a great many people and destroyed a great many cities, and are certainly justly known for their violence and mercilessness. It's worth noting, however, that their ruthlessness was sometimes a way to /avoid/ violence - they would totally obliterate one city in an area, sometimes causing nearby cities to surrender without a fight and therefore with minimal casualties. The total killed was then less than it might have been with a more "traditional" approach. Of course, the Mongols did this because it was easier, not to avoid deaths.

For good reasons too, there are STILL massive great piles of skulls
in stone cairns left from some of their most gung ho operations.

The reason the romans dont get called that is because they were quite
happy to absorb those who werent stupid enough to try resisting them.


The Romans took full control of many of the areas they conquered, and generally always considered themselves to be a separate people ruling subject states. They did not "absorb" other people except as slaves or peasants (though the longer term subject states gradually became more and more "romanized"). While many countries they conquered had little chance against the Roman armies, and arguably benefited from the Roman presence (peace between rival tribes, roads, law and order, etc.), it was hardly "stupid" to resist them.

They could be pretty gung ho tho, have a look at what they did to Boudica sometime.

Possibly related reasons as above.

Nope. There were no written historys of the survivors of the mongols to speak of.


Regarding the Romans (and many other people), it is undoubtedly the case that reputations they have now is heavily influenced by those that wrote records at or around the time - whether it be the attacking forces, their victims, or third parties. I think that how historical people and events are perceived, and how and why that perception changes over time, is often as interesting as the history itself.

"History will treat me kindly. I know, for I shall write it".
Winston Churchill.




.

Loading