Vikings Were Mean! - Clarification

Vikings Were Mean! - Clarification
/ scholagladiatoria
/ historicalfencing

[@beardedbjorn5520]

We all know that the biggest influence that Vikings have had on the world, is their development of black leather biker gear. Source: History Channel

[@scholagladiatoria]

And giant stitching made of leather thong. I don't think they could make needles or thread.

[@nealsterling8151]

And horned helmets, lol.

[@beardedbjorn5520]

scholagladiatoria 😂

[@Jinseual]

Was aliens involved?

[@sandmanhh67]

A thousand NWOBHM rockers owe their studded gauntlets to Erik Bloodaxe ;-)

[@1EDSEL3]

"Humans beat the living crap out of each other. Quite often. That's what we do." - Matt Easton 2018

[@AB8511]

Someone should definitely do compilation of his quotes like this. Intentionally taken out of context. For the sheer fun of it....

[@InqWiper]

+Edsel "Humans beat the living crap out of each other. Quite often. That's what we do, officer." - Drunk Matt Easton 2018

[@alfatazer_8991]

"I don't have an axe to grind..." *Has an axe in hand* How long were you keeping that one in Matt?:)

[@frankharr9466]

Well, obviously, it was already sharp.

[@subbss]

The axe wound got penetrated by something, it was probably an axe... grinding.

[@gorgonzolastan]

I don't have any axe to grind as he holds a big axe in his right hand lol

[@johaneriksandberg]

brilliant!

[@karemare6426]

Lol so true hahhaha :D

[@robinthrush9672]

Next week he'll come on camera with a French fry on his shirt so he can make a pun of "I don't have a chip on my shoulder about X"

[@carloscaro9121]

If the axe is sharp, it doesn't need a grind.

[@UnintentionalSubmarine]

"Taking your wives, taking your sheep"... Oh dear. Struggling to keep the jokes back.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

That's the Welsh...

[@franohmsford7548]

Has no particular axe to grind while holding a massive great axe in ready position - Rofl!

[@scholagladiatoria]

I only realised the irony when I was editing the video....

[@AB8511]

And several axes are hanging in background. I would even dared to recommend to grind your axes Matt, if they are not sharp enough...

[@mikaluostarinen4858]

"Vikings were mean, so I purchased similar axes as they had." :)

[@ellieliebefrei3862]

And seconds later added about not having a ship on his shoulder - while the general topic of the video is the Viking era. Love how naturally these expressions come in

[@vytas5584]

It's "chip" in case you never heard that before

[@leandro_lp83]

we have a tendencie to find criminals interesting, because of their adventurous life the same happens with pirates

[@dobypilgrim6160]

Americans like Billy the Kid and Jesse James. Same difference.

[@PedroPerez-sy5hp]

Because they are romanticised, they are history, they aren't a nuisance to your way of living. Think of them like current criminals, like extremists that behead their enemies in our time. You don't feel anything for them but hate.

[@Calanon]

Not only did Ironclad have Vikings, but they had Hungarian-speaking Danish Vikings.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Just wow.

[@mtgAzim]

on an upside though, Ironclad also has James Purefoy, he's always fun ^_- he's really awesome in Rome too

[@frankharr9466]

I love the image.

[@noctelingerlandsturm7995]

I think they were Hungarian speaking Danish Vikings with Pictish leanings judging from all the badly applied 'blue paint' at the end lol

[@frankharr9466]

Maybe they had a raft of Pictish relatives. They likely had the reunions and everything.

[@SuperWilliam1994]

Surely Saxons where Vikings just 500 years earlier?

[@elmerkappell2318]

King Arthur may agree with that lol.

[@00Trademark00]

Women and children I could understand, but I'll be damned if someone takes our sheep!

[@kristofferp5480]

woke

[@soundfxmaster]

Vikings are kind of like the samurai for people who've realised the katana isn't the greatest sword ever. It's the popularised interesting history that's been blown out of proportion

[@collectorduck9061]

Precisely!

[@sirnilsolav6646]

On your last video I wrote in what way the Vikings differed from the Christians in terms of warfare. Short answer is that Vikings often went back on their word, broke oaths even when they had given hostages. To what extent their pillaging is different from other Europeans is hard to say, but their pillaging of undefended places, slave economy and breaking of promises put them in a category of their own. If we talk about society we can see a lot of different ways that Vikings differed morally. And it's not simply Christian sources, but Muslim sources on this as well and what kind of actions they did that both we living now and the Christians and Muslims living at the time would consider immoral. That being said my comment on your last video and this one is not meant to be anti-Viking. I myself am Scandinavian and I find the Viking Age fascinating. There's a lot of interesting things going on at the time. I find Viking society especially interesting, the societal structure, culture and so on. However, the negative side of the Vikings are in this age always downplayed. Whenever you open a modern book about the Vikings you are 95% of the time going to read about the exaggeration from the Christian sources and how most "Vikings" weren't pillagers or conquerors but peaceful multicultural farmers (The BBC actually called Iceland a multicultural society because of the Irish women they kidnapped). I love the Viking Age, it's one of the periods I'm most interested in and there's a lot to admire about the Vikings, but you can't look at the Crusades without taking into account the violence that happened there nor can you admire Charlemagne for his Carolingian renaissance without looking at his conquest of Europe and violent conversion of the Saxons. Neither should the Vikings be viewed simply for their exploration and trade, but also for the terror they brought to mainland Europe.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Thanks, great post.

[@cloudcleaver23]

America is multicultural for the variety of European colonists and immigrants alone, and then you also have large waves of East Asian immigrants in the late 1800s. It's also a little different to say America is multicultural now, as opposed to pointing at the era of racial slavery and saying that made it multicultural then, as if the act of enslaving other races itself counts as some multicultural extra credit.

[@hinderhilt4398]

Going back on oaths is something every empire did, Spaniards defeated incans after kidnapping their emperor and demandig a ransom, after they got the ransom, they went back on their word and hanged him.. Slavery is something every empire did. Heck, england, portugal and spain sustained their economy and became the greatest empires during the colonial era through slave economy, The big difference is that newer empires used black slaves, which, for some reason, appears to be ignored.

[@Jammyg1t]

There was no good or bad in those days. Everyone was a little bit of both. Self gain is what drives people to commit such violence. It was a harsh world.

[@hrotha]

I guess it depends on how the topic is treated beyond the mere use of the word "multiculturalism", and on whether or not it whitewashes the issue of slavery, rape and forced marriage. Many settlers of Iceland were Norse-Gaels from Ireland, and it's hard to argue that wasn't a multicultural society, regardless of how it originated.

[@basilb4524]

"...And yes I strayed into christianity and islam and all sorts of things which I proOObably shouldn't have done..."

[@subbss]

...and then he talks about athiesm and nazis. Makes me afraid to read the comment section.

[@Likexner]

Nah, its fine. He didnt say anything provocative.

[@HebaruSan]

Take me to Iceland! -- Matt Easton, 876 AD

[@beardedbjorn5520]

Matt: VIKINGS!!! Lindybeige: Inaccuracies!!!

[@robertcorbell1006]

"VIKINGS!!!" (Same voice as "CONDOM!!!" from the "Safe Sex vs. Reality" video from College Humor. XD )

[@robinschlyter309]

Damn those viking sheep botherers!

[@scholagladiatoria]

#rememberthesheep

[@EmilReiko]

Have you been noticing our ships actually have dragon heads on their prows... Svend!, are... are we the baddies?

[@williamchamberlain2263]

Nice - great ref!

[@beth7935]

YAAAAS Mitchell & Webb!!! All the love!

[@Vingul]

Dragons aren’t inherently bad mate

[@EmilReiko]

@@Vingul point me towards the not bad dragon in Norse cosmology or later Scandinavian folklore.

[@Vingul]

@@EmilReiko the (pre-christian) Norsemen weren't so concerned with good and bad as their christianised ancestors. While they were of course concerned with good and bad, they weren't so trapped within that dichotomous paradigm. When you read the sagas you see that the authors are seldom concerned with what is good or bad in what they describe (except for when a certain person within them asks his men for "good advice", for instance), they simply tell the tale to the best of their knowledge and poetic ability. That's part of their charm, to me at least. When a person exits the saga, they'll simply state "And now Geirodd is out of the saga", and when someone kills another it is told very matter-of-factly and without any moral judgment on the matter. I love that style. Anyway, sorry about the ramble.. cutting to the chase: who's to say that Jörmungandr is "bad"? It is the worm that encircles the world like an ouroborous, quite literally outside of human understanding. Not even Loki is inherently bad, that's a simplification of the subject matter. Some things are beyond good and evil.

[@PolluxA]

I think a lot of Frenchmen disagree with that statement about England vs. France. The way Prince Edward of Woodstock in 1355 on his chevaucheé, pillaged and burned Comté de Foix and Languedoc, laying waste to more than 500 villages, was extraordinary and on pair with what the worst of the worst vikings did.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Yup, I wouldn't disagree. It doesn't make the vikings less bad.

[@TimmyTurner421]

scholagladiatoria doesn't make the brits much better either.

[@MrVvulf]

By 1100 the "English" nobility were pseudo-vikings, i.e. Normans. Certainly agree that the French had good reasons for hard feelings during and after the 100 years war.

[@MtnTow]

Ask the First Nations of Canada about Brits and the French. Just that one little point i have to disagree with.

[@2adamast]

No flags? _In that battle two of their kings were killed, that is Sigfröðr and Guðröðr, and sixteen royal standards were carried off_

[@kabalder]

I, you know.. being Norwegian and having read everything I can get my hands on of both source-material and historical commentary and so on.. I appreciate your point of view here, and I think it's legitimate. But you're still making an equivalency argument that can also be used to excuse the Norse kings, regardless of their conduct. In just the same way that you're, on balance, suggesting that raping and pillaging wasn't the modus operandi of the Christian armies. Because the entire foundation of the argument is that "your culture" historically condemns something else as being barbaric to the point of them being the embodiment of the devil, etc. So by that same token, if you read Atlakvida (which.. is basically about Attila the Hun brutally murdering our humble norse heroes to get their treasure. And towards the end one brother goads Attila into murdering the other first. Which the first brother then laughs heartily about, because now it's only him left who knows where the treasure is, so now the secret will go with him to the grave, and Atla is defeated. He then murders the other brother as well in anger, and we laugh at the barbaric tendencies of Atla and his people's weakness for conquering other people's holy treasures) -- if you read that, then you're basically getting the exact same as when reading Christendom's accounts of heathens and pagans: we are noble and great, and they are in comparison, without culture, without honor and are simply taking with force and brutality. And essentially the world would be a better place were they all dead. So your argument for defending Christendom (as a semi-uniform movement in the 1200s), could be used to defend Norse kings and scandinavian settlements, traders and even raiders as indeed representing the most noble of the cultures around northern Europe around 1200. Certainly, we could say, there are all kinds of sagas and semi-historical accounts that explain how long periods of peace between kings in the British Isles and Norse kings were more than sufficient to explain how immigration and exchange of goods and legitimately traded trells/slaves of Irish, Scottish and English origin came to Norway. Indeed, objectively speaking, that the language is so similar (you could from a linguistic point of view say, with perfectly good backing, that Norwegian is even today is 60% English) clearly means that there was a relationship between these places that was based on something completely different than simply raiding and pillaging. By necessity - were they raping the British women, and then teaching them proto-germanic norse? Makes no sense! Meanwhile, of course the people who went in Viking were bad, and there were raiders who were utterly indiscriminate. So how do we avoid this equivalence trap of "but Christian knights also raped". Etc. Christian armies had laws in place up until late 1400 that would make rape and pillaging seem genuinely civilized in comparison. So how we do we avoid that equivalence trap coming from having to generalise the entire movement as a culture-force pitted against barbarian scum of such and such variety? The solution is to not do that "battle of the cultures" analysis, and simply accept that just as Christian knights were undeniably paragons of morality in real ways, that they also failed miserably in certain periods. Indeed, sometimes making short work of an amount of people that relative to the population sizes at the time is the modern equivalent of a sustained genocide. But hey, we can't succeed all the time. In the same way, norse small-kings and the tradition of "Thing", of an official parliament where laws and advocacy was promoted specifically to avoid blood-feuds -- this has been a thing for hundreds of years before "Landnåmstida" (time of "taking", breaking new land), which is when Iceland is populated. And this is such an important aspect of the entire culture that Snorre, who was in fact a lawmaker on Iceland, likely wrote up the Icelandic sagas at the time, in 1200, to promote law - by explaining, with these historical sagas of Gunnar and Njål, and so on - what would happen if there was no Law and no Thing. Meanwhile, on the mainland, they were thinking of Iceland as the barbarians without any law, who had no order and just settled and created their own laws. Instead of having respect for the small-king rule and by that point the slightly less smaller kings, and treaties in every direction. In fact, making people "peace-less"(lawless, without protection from common decency - they could be killed, and no renumeration or pay would be demanded) and even banishing people from the country was a practice kept from the old days, before and during the "viking age". So in between this, you see that there's a wealth of information here to make the argument that on the whole, norsemen were actually the most honorable and moral "culture" there was. Sure, they pillaged like everyone else - but they were honorable and did it only to people that weren't allies of the great norse "culture". See how this works? One element of this, though is this. There were, and the slightly more historical sagas of Snorre's also get into this, a number of raiders who were lawless, who escaped Norway because they were criminals and were not going to come back, ever. And they undeniably raided the british Isles back and forth several times. Kings and organised armies didn't do that. Outside of Sverre, who arguably went to Britain to disappear in a blaze of glory at the hand of the English horsemen (who were feared, norse armies had no defense against that), no kings after some 800 or so actually organised raiding parties against civilian targets. In their own semi-accurate accounts. And also not in Snorre's accounts, even implied, in spite of Snorre making an enemy of the entire remaining line of Kings in Norway at the time with his work about the history of Norway's kings. They make little argument about how the kings of old, back in the long long ago (before the modern, enlightened day of 1200-ish) were essentially raiders. But the idea that they were raiders, or even stemmed from raiders was a horrendous thought. Which is what landed Snorre in trouble, and he was in the end probably murdered by a Norwegian agent of some sort. So yes, there is an argument to be made that at various points, people who became small kings raided and pillaged, and built their wealth on pillaged holydoms and riches. But there is also an argument to be made that in between here, there may very well have been hundreds of years of peace and trade. Adelråd (Athelstan) certainly had no trouble with raiders, as with kings on the Orkneys and likely also Ireland. So there are periods in between here of history that although we don't know for a fact - simply can't be replaced with just "norse raiders came and pillaged endlessly for hundreds of years until Christendom finally arrived". That's not how it works. It's lazy, and it's the same culture-clash argument that survives to this day when people go around proclaiming that we're bombing villages with phosphourous ammunition, sure, and we drive massive populations to displacement for hundreds of years -- but we're doing so with a good intention and a high moral standard. We're the good guys, etc. It's not how history really works - outside 1900-ish textbooks and onwards that seek to compact events into one digestible single thought that covers everything. Well, at least it's not how history should work. But take from the rant that there are huge gaps in history here, where simply raiding and pillaging cannot account for the type of population changes or movement that took place between Denmark, the baltic states, Sweden, Norway and Iceland. That cannot account for the linguistic changes and similarities between old English and "norse", proto-norse and germanic languages as well as more modern old norwegian. And that doesn't explain how genetic material spread over generations - without going into some fantastic idea about how all Irish and English women were continuously raped, for several generations, by viking raiders specifically from Norway, and carried these children and made them kings and rulers - again and again for hundreds of years. Like the Isles were an endless harem, where no one else but the vikings had sex with their women except when they raided. You know, it makes no sense if you try to spell it out in practice, does it. "We know that vikings raped, because the genetic material spread, from multiple and variable sources, for many generations of different origins, over several generations -- and the only explanation is organised rape over hundreds of years". Doesn't sound right, does it.

[@XonokMe]

That's some excellent context, mate. Thanks.

[@robinburt5735]

The reason peeps like Vikings is the same reason peeps like pirates, ninjas, samurai etc, is that even though most peeps know that they're complete gits most of the time they're still kinda cool and romantised about.

[@andrewshute9761]

Hell ya. Don't forget that peeps love Hell's Angels and other biker bad boys too.

[@robinburt5735]

Also Vikings are like the manliest of men in pop culture. Massive ripped burly guys with axes not wearing much armour.

[@dobypilgrim6160]

I never even knew that those little yellow confections were all that political. I eat them at Easter time with mi kids. Easter Bunny brings them. Peeps.

[@iopklmification]

"Vikings are just like Nazis !" Matt Easton as understood by the internet.

[@mattd8725]

Not that unusual a connection. If you get a Norse tattoo the police ain't exactly going to assume you are a Skallagrim or Neil Gaiman fan, you know?

[@CreeperKiller666]

"If you get a Norse tattoo the police ain't exactly going to assume you are a Skallagrim or Neil Gaiman fan, you know?" What are you on about? People who see Norse tattoos are going to assume you are a pagan, or a history buff, or a metal fan. Nobody in their right mind associated Norse imagery and symbolism with Nazism, at least not in North America. It might be different in Germany, but the connection between Vikings and Nazis doesn't really exist in the US, Canada, etc.

[@hrotha]

Let's not pretend the Nazis haven't been trying to co-opt Norse and Germanic symbols for the better part of a century now.

[@CreeperKiller666]

"Let's not pretend the Nazis haven't been trying to co-opt Norse and Germanic symbols for the better part of a century now." I'm not. I am just saying that they have not been successful in doing so, at least in North America. You see Norse symbols all the time, and they are always associated with Bikers, Neopagans, Metalheads, or historical fiction/fantasy. The association between Nazis and Vikings is not particularly strong in the US or Canada. When you see actual Nazis, they rarely use those symbols anyway, preferring instead to use the skull, cross, or swastika. It might be different in European countries where certain symbols are banned, and where people have closer historical ties to the vikings, but that doesn't really hold true in North America. Thor's hammer, various runes, the world tree motif, and other Norse symbols are very common in the US and Canada, and are not perceived negatively or associated with Nazism.

[@InqWiper]

+hrotha Yes, because remembering history is trying to co-opt it. Is it odd that people who care about their nation also care about their history? Naturally some of these people will be what you would call "nazi".

[@SquirlNutssss]

To be fair didn’t the saxons invade England in a similar matter

[@samshepherd9392]

Great content as always chap. Keep at it!

[@metayerman]

I get really annoyed with the pro-viking crowd. Especially the LARPers claiming to truly believe in the old gods. Seriously? You honestly believe Thor exists and if you die in battle you’ll go to Valhalla? No you don’t, you just think it’s cool.

[@schwertschwinger]

Humans are shit... so that was the main point of the video!^^ 9:54

[@rjfaber1991]

That's the main point of life at large, isn't it?

[@InSanic13]

Though to a significantly less degree now than in the Medieval Period, at least in terms of rates of violence.

[@vorrnth8734]

Why would an english person want to play a viking in reenactment? Why not? Both are germanic people who invaded Britain. Just at different times.

[@scholagladiatoria]

That's a fair point, but the English person is English. I can't imagine that many Scots reenact being members of Edward I's army.

[@vorrnth8734]

Well Scotland vs England is still a cause for conflict today. On the other hand the relations to scandinavia became peaceful after their christianization. Therefore I see a difference her :)

[@davidweihe6052]

> That's a fair point, but the English person is English. Meet it might be if verity, but many of the "English" are part Dane (in the old sense of from the Danelaw), and it is right that they can be whom they wish. Anyway, many "English" aren't, either; either Celts, or even Beaker Folk, who converted to the new culture(s) because it was cooler to be like the new conquerors than the old now-serfs or slaves. Some are even Norman-descended, who were Frenchified Norsemen. I would imagine that most "Scots" pretend to be Scots (who were Northern Irish who came over to wed heiresses, until they took over the place) rather than Northumbrian (i.e., English) refugees (as most Lowlanders mostly are). Of course, the some in the Orkneys pretend to Scottish, whereas they were mostly Norsemen until the islands were given to Scotland in a marriage exchange. If you want ancestral simplicity, be a Basque (except that converting will destroy THEIR "purity", won't it?) or the people who used to be called the Bushmen, if you can handle the clicks in your new language.

[@xih228]

Hey Matt, do you sharpen your own axes? If so how do you do it? I've seen some neat axe sharpening vids from some creators who are blacksmiths or woodsman (eg one person named Wranglerstar) and was wondering how you do it if you do it at all. and is there a difference between sharpening an axe for weapon use or for tool/chopping use? thanks!

[@georgiyyamov5827]

And now he also implied that Vikings have been 'doing' sheep. Yeah, I have heard that!

[@runswithcows464]

Well that's it! As an Englishman with Anderson for a surname I've never really known who's side I'm on but now, according to Matt, I'm not allowed to like myself.

[@TheLowstef]

I don't usually "like" your videos when they're just fun and entertaining (you've set yourself up with high standards, it's your own fault). But when you make a nuanced not-black-and-white point on a complex topic... Yeah, you got my click this time.

[@ktoth29]

"I have no particular axe to grind" ... says matt easton while holding an axe. This man belongs to the church of double entendre

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

At least he is not talking about vigorous thrusts and penetration! Fnar!

[@0Turbox]

I thought the name Vikings was back then the synonym for pirates. Means, not every Dane was a Viking or other Scandinavians. Same like, not every German in WWII was a Nazi.

Awesome that my friend Thord made your axes. I was thinking it might be him :-)

[@23093034]

Why does an Englishman like Vikings? I guess 1,000 years is a bit long to have a chip on your shoulder.

[@lotoreo]

but they took your sheep!

[@reporterid]

I'm pretty sure he doesn't think English people should still have a grudge against Scandinavian countries. He was talking in general, to make a point and elaborate from it.

[@falconJB]

Yeah that is a bit like saying the Irish shouldn't like Shakespeare because Cromwell's English were genocidal monsters.

[@brucetucker4847]

I know a lot of Irish-Americans who still have a chip on their shoulder over Cromwell. A lot of Irish-Americans tend to be more fixated on the past than Irish people in Ireland are.

[@althesmith]

The CC option- is there any way of making corrections? I'd be glad to do it. Sometimes I get a nasty head after using the press or grinder a long time and I like watching sound off.

[@Swordsman_HEMMA]

@4:30 >"I don't have any particular axe to grind" >Waves an axe around

[@DerangedGodOfMischief]

Outside of a handful of Utopic religious movements, was there any large gathering of people that wasn't a bunch of jerks in the era?

[@wierdalien1]

Pavel Volkovoi no.because people are jerks

[@DerangedGodOfMischief]

People are heavily influenced by the conditions they live in. Brutal conditions create brutal people.

[@pariahdog5214]

Pavel Volkovoi Maybe the icelanders? They had a pretty rough and somewhat brutal culture too, but they were too isolated to fight against other cultures and most of the time too smart to kill each other before the winter came... yes, saga heroes were brutal assholes, but keep in mind that most of them were also outlaws... i think for them a hero wasnt as much somebody to admire as it was someone with an interesting tale. Just think about what future generations will think about us if they see no country for old men...

[@Dave-ks9fi]

Pavel Volkovoi or any era

[@wierdalien1]

Pavel Volkovoi nah. There are always people in a population who are awful. Just by dint of the genetic they were handed.

[@samarkand1585]

"but at no point have the English ever created an idea about the French that they're raping, pillaging...." well good thing you didn't put it the other way around cause during the hundred years war the english pillaging on french lands have been damn rough, especially from the famous "black prince"

[@althesmith]

There is an old joke. An American scout in the mid-1800's is briefed by an Army post commander who tells him to get as close to the local tribe as he possibly could and then come back and report. 2 years later the same scout shows up, wearing a mix of western clothes and native dress and asks to speak to the Colonel. He says, hesitantly at first, almost like he's forgotten his own language "I have made friends with the Red Man. We have hunted together, fished together. I have learned their tongue and their ways. I have gone through their manhood rituals and been adopted by the tribe. This last winter a women of their tribe came to my tent, and she will bear my child this fall." The Colonel says "Well, get it out , man! What do you want to tell us?' "Get off our land, Paleface."

[@anarosareyes6269]

Love when you go so pasionate about historical facts this are the videos I suscribed for! You can be such a reasercher and then you go and make a video about the correct pronunciation of chorizo (love that video) man you are terrific!😘

[@adam-k]

_most people were better of under Christendom then when they were attacked by heathens_ That works in any direction. It sucks when you are being attacked. I dont think that the Anglo Saxon conquest of the British Isles were less violent. Or that the Norman conquest was less violent. Edward the Black Prince has slaughtered whole of Limoges that probably wasn't less violent. The Carolingians happily traded Slavic slaves with the Muslims, that was kind of violent. Were the vikings violent? Yes they were. Were they more violent than the Irish? Probably. The Irish only fought against each other for ever. Were they more violent than any other nation of the period while attacking foreigners? I dont think so.

[@francescofontana9707]

Yeah but Christianity enforced on warriors and soldiers a moral code that made life marginally better for common folk caught between two warring feudal lords than for people subject to Norse, Moorish or Hungarian raids. The Truce of God for example forbid fighting on Sundays or Holy days, near churches or holy grounds in general. Churches and people who took refuge in them were respected by Christians as early as the Gothic invasions of the Roman empire. Heathens were not subjected to those rules so being attacked by them was indeed worse

[@xthor86]

All thoos rules though went down the shitter when they did not fight against fellow christians.

[@adam-k]

Pagans also had their holy sites where they could find peace. Except Christians rarely respected them. What actually made a difference was feudalism and taxation. Leaders of invading armies would rather have a steady pool of workers and flow of tax than the spoils of one raid. That said the Hundred Years War devastated France. The leaderless mercenaries hired by the English were no better than any viking horde. And the accounts from France are no better (I would argue much worse) than the accounts from Ireland during the viking period. For example this is one account from the Jacquerie revolt during the the Hundred Years War. They were Christians. The revolt was a consequences of high taxation, English mercenaries devastating the land and the peasants blaming the French nobility not to protect them "peasants killed a knight, put him on a spit, and roasted him with his wife and children looking on. After ten or twelve of them raped the lady, they wished to force feed them the roasted flesh of their father and husband and made them then die by a miserable death"

[@francescofontana9707]

You're comparing apples with oranges here, the Jacquerie is very particular phenomenon, almost 500 years distant from the Viking age. The level of violence to be expected in European warfare were not those of the 1348 crisis, which has a number of causes beyond those you listed,such as the social upheaval caused by the pandemics of plague in the mid XIV century. The second part of that century was plagued everywhere in Europe, from England to Italy by revolts of the lower classes, because to pin it just of fiscal pressure seems reductive. Anyway, if Saxons had not made an habit of breaking treaties with the Frankish Emperor maybe the Irminsul would stand to this day. Anyway the economic model for Christians powers during the "Viking age" was one that allowed a relatively peaceful life to the serfs that inhabited it (at least in theory), while the Norse Pagan model depended on raiding and trading slaves, which are not by themselves particularly peaceful activities.

[@adam-k]

I think it is fair to compare Christian mercenaries and raiders to Norse mercenaries and raiders. Vikings were not particularly violent when they were at home and did not lived more violent lives than their Christian counterparts. They didn't even had proper death penalty, they mostly just exiled their criminals. Yes the Hundred Year wars is far removed from the viking age. The Harrying of the North done by William the Conqueror is not. Was that better than the Viking raids? I dont think so. [Edit] I aslo dont think that the Carolingian slave trade was somehow better than the Scandinavian slave trade.

[@ollifoxbow9123]

I can definitively agree with your point that it feels strange to be fascinated by a historical enemy of one’s ancestors. I am half-French, but developed a massive passion for the English Longbow, both for its practice and its history. Thus being the iconic weapon of the Hundred-Years War and still being celebrated as a picker of Frenchmen, the longbow has a very ambiguous effect on me. But hey, that’s history and European heritage and ancestry has mixed in many ways. And actually, I never felt like a Frenchman, a German or an Englishman, but rather than a European. In the end it’s our common interests that connect us and not the nationalities on our identity cards. ;-)

[@christianbagge609]

Great video Matt! Speaking trues as always! Totally agree with you and saying this as a man of Swedish and Norwegian descent.

[@holyknightthatpwns]

I appreciate how you handle *not* talking about the merits of various religions. I'm a practicing Christian, and I love me a good conversation about the technicalities and distinctions between religions, but I agree that that's off the mark for a historically focused channel. What groups of religiously motivated people did is certainly a part of history, whether or not they were properly following the rules or commands of their faith is probably a question best left for another crowd. Love your stuff Matt.

[@sf90001]

I always thought it was an American thing to be obsessed with all ancient European history. I once met a girl from Norway and she was like why can’t you guys focus on our amazing healthcare system instead of shit that happened 1000 years ago?

[@IlBarbafluff]

Well since we do have healthcare now we can spend our time with ancient history. Also, in many parts of Europe there are towns and cities still holding grudges from centuries ago.

[@Dominator046]

Americans fall into different brackets. From all the way at the top of being historical experts, to being all the way at the bottom and barely being aware that swords and assault rifles didn't exist at the same time. EDIT: As an American who works in a university office for History and Political Science.

[@vytas5584]

You probably think that because you're American? I'm Australian and watch an English bloke's history channel so, welcome to the world!

[@clothar23]

I was in Norway once, their healthcare sucked. It took them three bloody hours to find someone to stitch my cuts up. I admittedly got into a bar fight with some asshole with Neo Nazi tattoos but I hardly think a reason for such a delay. But I'd rather focus on the history then the lousy healthcare and people being allowed to walk around with Nazi tattoos . Least the history is worthwhile unlike the healthcare and modern Norwegian society.

[@richardbloodgood4399]

When medical expenses and doctors become as interesting as permenantly altering European geopolitics with the edge of a sword, then maybe.

[@Feldscher1039]

oh damn Matt, now you have opened the Nazi-bottle as well. Man the walls!

[@firelordsusan555]

Wow, Matt! Great moves, keep it up, proud of you!

[@NastyCupid]

I don't like the good guys/bad guys mentality or even talking about it, it serves no purpose and only increases the subjectivity in historical research. They did what they did back in the day, and we should just try to put aside our own morals and values we have today when reviewing history.

[@PeninsulaPaintingProjects]

Have you ever watched pro wrestling? In the 90's the heels (the bad guys) and a guy called Stone Cold Steve Austin was an anti hero became the cool people to support. It seems that in the past 20 to 30 years this has happened with Vikings

[@scholagladiatoria]

Nice comparison :-)

[@PeninsulaPaintingProjects]

scholagladiatoria thanks boss love your channel

[@aurourus6894]

John Cena and John Cena there you go.

[@Mtonazzi]

Ariel Valenzuela C'mon, 'Taker and Kane, the brothers of destruction, but I have a soft spot for the Bushwackers

[@Mtonazzi]

How dare people like different and unrelated things? :p I get you, you like Olympic wrestling, I am (or was?) more into sports entertainment wrestling. I'd rather enjoy the cheesy and corny stories with the unbelievable stories of feuds than watch two oiled dudes trying to dominate each other on the floor.

[@SibylleLeon]

Thanks for the clear words. I couldn't believe some of the comments under the original video. Some people you just need to nudge, and racial/religious prejudice comes out :-/

[@Nerobyrne]

That's what happens when people get their self-worth and identity from ideas and belief systems outside themselves. This can really be anything from a world religion all the way to a gender or an occupation. A well-adjusted Christian will see your criticism of the bible or god as just that: criticism of some parts of an idea. But a fanatic will see it as an attack of THEM, because they haven't just adopted the ideas or culture of Christianity, they have made it part of themselves. So when you insult god, in their eyes it is actually a direct attack on them. That's why I think the answer to all fanaticism, no matter what kind, is: "Be at peace with yourself first, then find things you like about the world"

[@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin]

+Nerobyrne Basically, what Jordan Peterson says. Though personally I kind of figured this shit out on my own at age 15. There's still a deal to learn from JP than how not to be a fanatic though, but really, I'm saying that fanatics have been unable to figure out something I figured out at age 15. So take of that what you will.

[@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin]

+Theo de Raadt No, everyone has a right to express themselves. You only invite a reactionary pendulum, if you push too hard against them.

[@tomharding2388]

This is one of the most honest and free speaking videos I've seen you do and I loved it! People need to learn to not be offended

[@crozraven]

Internet is full of nonsensical people & stating facts would never please everybody. The fact that you made a clarification video is totally normal.

[@KageRyuu6]

I'm pretty certain English Christians killed French Monks and pillaged and burned French Monasteries. So Christians killed Christian Clergy on occasion, but I will admit I very much doubt an English Christian would kill an English Monk, if only because they both spoke the same language and lived under the same law, both royal and divine. Or in short, they didn't want to shit in their bed for obvious reasons, but would happily burn someone else's house down around them so long as they could avoid the consequences.

[@brucetucker4847]

One thing to understand is the the Hundred Years' War came at the tail end of the Middle Ages, when a lot of the social and religious conventions that made of the fabric of medieval society were starting to break down. War was generally more brutal and barbaric in the Renaissance and early modern era than it was in the Middle Ages. The same goes for the Wars of the Roses, which ended up as something approaching a genocide of the Plantagenets and many of the oldest and most powerful noble houses in England, something that hadn't happened on that scale since the Norman Conquest. Medieval war could certainly get ugly but the scale of devastation of ordinary people and communities reached a new height (or low, depending on how you look at it) in the Hundred Years' War. Or at least, a new height for Christians fighting other orthodox Christians, the Crusades could get pretty nasty, and the nastiest ones were those fought against heretics and pagans within Europe.

[@gadyariv2456]

Is the Dane Ax actually a particularly Scandinavian ax? the so-called Viking swords are actually Frankish swords, used by both franks Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. we just found them at Viking swords because we found them in burial sites, but they aren't particularly Viking in nature. how do we know that the Dane ax is any different and that they didn't use it farther south on the continent?

[@scholagladiatoria]

Yes the large axe was particular to areas of Danish/Norse settlement and influence. It is clear that the English Housecarls adopted it after the reign of the Danish kings (Cnut etc). As far as swords are concerned, there are in fact specifically Scandinavian styles of hilt, even though they also used Frankish, English and other styles as well - I recommend Swords of the Viking age, which is the best book on the subject.

[@gadyariv2456]

thank you, i'll definitely be checking it out.

[@aidansumner8364]

I would say that all Germanics tend to have a very similar style to each other, as their roots stem back to the same culture.

[@2adamast]

There is the Francish francisca (axe), hard to say if it was much different

[@NiCBlackArrow]

These series of videos starts too be very intresting!

[@DwarfLordAirsoft]

Is the one handed axe you have in this video based on an archaeological one?

[@Aalienik]

I don't get your point about a modern day English or Polish person being unable to reenact a soldier/warrior from a faction that opposed their ancestors. You seem to allude that reenacting is a form of endorsement of whatever political system or culture that persona was a part of. If it's weird for a English person re-enacting as a Scandinavian Viking, Is it also weird that an English person can re-enact a battle from the war of the roses on the side of the royalists and still support our modern day representative democracy in his real life? Or that an English person can be re-enacting as a WW1 soldier despite not agreeing with the ideology of the government ruling at that time (such as Homosexuality being illegal and Women not having the vote, etc.)

[@vytas5584]

I think he is more referring to people who are doing in a way which shows misplaced pride

[@Khorney]

Vytas: But how could someone feel proud when portraying someone from a different than their own culture? I don't do any renactment myself, but isn't it more that people feel cool in viking gear (or whatever culture they are portraying)?

[@2adamast]

Reenacting bad ass people is more rewarding than reenacting people known for ... eating rotten fish. No need to feel victimized if people don't appreciate it, you're bad ass remember.

[@Wolfbane192]

So, just for sake of argument, would you apply the same argument from 7.30 (aroundabout) to English people who re-enact/support the Romans? They did essentially the same thing. Or is that invalidated by the fact that there was no 'England'/'English' at the time?

[@scholagladiatoria]

Well, there were/was no English/England, yes. I think that the Romans are somewhat different, as they were invited by certain British/Welsh leaders and at least in some areas they seem to have been welcomed. Additionally, they may have spelled the end for the British ruling class who opposed them, but they embraced those rulers who did what they wanted and ultimately they created a state where the population was probably much better off than they had been under native British rules. It was colonialism basically. Is it better to be ruled over by a great foreign lord, or by a terrible native lord? There's a question for another video :-)

[@Wolfbane192]

One I would be greatly interested in watching your take on. :-)

[@Hirvee5]

I think re-enactment should never be mixed with supporting the morality of the people being re-enacted. for example there is a lot of Finnish airsoft players who play as Russians, but that does not mean that they want to support actions of the Russian soldiers or military in any way. It is also very common for Russian airsoft players to wear American symbols and gear and that neither means they actually wish to join the US military. Playing a game in the context of violence does not imply actual violent intent. I don't think that the argument holds ground at all. Fantasizing about the life of a raider is very different from wishing to be an actual murderous thief. That is why there are ratings in movies for kids who might be unable to tell the difference.

[@lachirtel1]

scholagladiatoria, Certainly, one should (especially as an English or American person) treat that question with the utmost delicacy and attention to empirical detail. Your statement about Roman development, for example, does seem to have backing from the English heights across the ages study you posted a while back. However, for British India, Indian scholars from Dadabhai Naoroji to Irfan Habib (who wrote the definitive book on Mughal agriculture) have maintained this is not true (especially given the commodities taken more or less gratis, labor done, destruction of shipping and commercial industries, etc). The latter author suggests that caloric consumption and other health measures were mostly static from Mughal to British times, with the exception of an increase in famines in Bengal (decreased Indigo production from international competition reduced grain yields because the Indigo leftovers revitalized the soil). The British pocketed a bunch more, though, and didn't reinvest it locally. Certainly, the view from Puerto Rico or the Philippines would be similarly negative vis a vis the continental United States. One may also chose to have no lord at all, after all.

[@brucetucker4847]

I think the greater the historical distance, the more okay it is to ignore the political morality of the people you're reenacting. Nobody is still touchy about anything the Romans did - anyone with a grievance is 1500 years dead and so far out of living memory that it may as well have happened on another planet. Vikings are nearly there. WW2, not so much. There are still camp survivors alive - wouldn't you be ashamed if one of those people saw you running around in the woods in a SS uniform? US Civil War is in between - issues surrounding that war are still contentious, and if it's out of living memory, it's only at one remove - I never knew any Civil War veterans, but I grew up with people (my grandparents) who grew up hearing first-hand stories about the war. In the UK, the Civil War is probably far enough back that no one has much right to feel aggrieved; in Ireland, issues from those same wars stuck around a lot longer and I'd be a lot more hesitant to run around dressed like Cromwell - people might think I was an anti-Irish or anti-Catholic bigot.

[@blakewinter1657]

I think perhaps the relevant question - and I'm not sure of the answer - would be whether the vikings treated the christians worse than christians treated non-christians. Undoubtedly, a christian in the 9th century would rather be invaded by another christian group than by vikings, but what about non-christians? When we look at certain christian invasions, e.g. the Spaniards in North America, I think we see a level of brutality that is probably on par with the viking treatment of christians. So I find it difficult to assess whether the vikings were actually worse than others of the time, or if they were just worse to christians than most christians were to one another. Of course, regardless of the question of degree, the vikings were bad, morally speaking. However, there were aspects of the vikings which are very admirable, as well, such as their courage, skill in forging, skill in combat, etc. I think an analogy would be Christopher Columbus, who had many admirable qualities, but who also encouraged enslaving the North Americans, and whose mathematical abilities were definitely questionable (he miscalculated the circumference of the earth, which had been known for over a thousand years). Or perhaps Thomas Jefferson, whom I also admire in some ways, but who owned slaves and very likely raped at least one of them. So, yes, I am a fan of vikings. I, too, am an atheist, but I wear viking pendants (and Irish, because I'm a fan of the Irish). But in neither case am I suggesting they were morally upright people. I don't think we need to try to excuse or downplay that aspect in order to admire the other, positive characteristics. There is a tendency, in the modern world, which I think is a rather unfortunate one, that people want admiration to be sort of 'all or nothing.' I don't think things are that simple, nor do I think they need to be.

[@Psychichazard]

I think a lot of that needed saying. Romanticized perspectives of historical people are fine to hold, as long as you realise that they are romanticized rather than accurate representations. I have taken part in both Viking reenactment and Pirate Larp, and there's no way I'd enjoy anything like accuracy in those areas.

[@George-jg9sy]

I , on the other hand was raised as an atheist but God had other plans for me ha ha :)

[@Wien1938]

The core problem with the "moral" aspect of your argument, Matt, is that intra-Christian warfare was just as brutal with the possible (and limited) exception of monks and nuns. The key to why the Christians viewed the Norse as pagan devils was because a) they were very good at fighting and, b) being beaten by the heathens/infidels as viewed as a sign of divine displeasure, and c) they were pagans/heathens (whatever you want to call them). Look up the Peace of God (I forget the Latin) but note that the Church was actively trying to stop the warrior and noble classes from waging constant warfare on each other, which usually meant the peasants were killed, wives and daughters raped or kidnapped, the farms pillaged and general mayhem. Monks were murdered by Christians (especially if the wrong sort of monk) and you'll find aggression against "holy" men and women right up to the Reformation. One of the English nobles in the 15th Century was accused of kidnapping, raping and impregnating a French nun. This was shocking but not unknown. The Holy Roman Emperors and the Papacy waged war against one another, declaring the other as an agent of the Devil. Such things happened before and after the Viking age.

[@TheGeorgb83]

I once read that some of the men who went on a 'viking' were often criminals in their own societies, sometimes having been banished for crimes like murder and rape. But the more succesful those raids became, the more people jumped on the bandwagon.

[@enginnonidentifie]

Just like with the last video, I definitely think this is more than a fair point and it is likely that the Vikings may have even used types of targeted violence to instill fear in their Christian victims. After all, societies have different standards of acceptability and hold different things dear, etc... However, many of the written accounts were also generated by their foes, so that is important to consider as well (which you, indeed, did in the first video but is a point that is worth reiterating). Reading my last comment, I may have come off a bit more muddled than I realized! The point I really wanted to make on this one, though, is that I think remember the groups like vikings, pirates, etc... for what they were need not undermine ones enjoyment of pop culture stuff, but does help put things into more perspective and may help people avoid taking romanticized characters from historical fiction/pop culture at face value. You can also launch into discussions about historiography, myth creation and historical memory in society with topics like this but those, can start getting too academic, which may not be everyone's cup of tea (though it's certainly works for me!)

[@TheNivable]

Makes me kinda sad and angry that you had to make this video. No doubt you got some unpleasant replies which caused you to do this. Stay strong.

[@anarionelendili8961]

Re: (Modern) English re-enacting as Vikings: 1) Some English from Danelaw might actually have Scandinavian ancestry. 2) And more importantly: It will be a very boring re-enactment of Battle of Maldon with only the English side showing up. Same as with Normans in the re-enactment of the Battle of Hastings. :)

[@scholagladiatoria]

You know what - I do get why English people want to reenact being vikings. I just don't think I could bring myself to do it though. To me they are the enemy and the Anglo-Saxons were fighting for their homes and families.

[@anarionelendili8961]

Oh, I am not arguing against that. Vikings were definitely starting out as raiders and enslavers. Not really that much different from the later Barbery Coast pirates.

[@LOWB90]

Im amazed you remembered us! Kudos! #Norway

[@inregionecaecorum]

6:21 "you can find Vikings everywhere". Too right, bloody great Ikea in the middle of Coventry.

[@kenzofinucane4057]

I dont think its fine to believe in stupid ideologies, its irresponsible

[@scholagladiatoria]

It's not my job to change people's religious beliefs though. I am too busy already.

[@duchessskye4072]

Define 'stupid'. You're also a believer of an ideology. Just because another ideology doesn't agree with your world view does not make it in any way worse or better than yours.

[@kenzofinucane4057]

scholagladiatoria true and probably a good idea not to offend a probably considerable part of your fanbase

[@kenzofinucane4057]

Quod Deum Immortalem Well yeah, my ideologies, like the belief that helping each other is in ones best interest and that teaching stuff that is obviously wrong because it self contradicts is very harmful to people, among a couple of other philosophical ideas are based on my observation of reality and my understanding of logic and the sciences, instead of the mistranslated words of ancient warmongering jews/jewish sects, that use their texts as propaganda that promotes mainly genocide among other atrocities

[@duchessskye4072]

But the only reason you promote helping others is because you feel like it is the right thing to do. The religious people think that the life after death does exist, and do everything to make sure they will get into the paradise. In the end, both those actions are based off personal satisfaction.

[@dannyrock4738]

Do viking ever fought a decent army??, because i always hear people compering the vikings with the mongols .... but the mongol army met armies 2 or 3 times their sizes and won. But every acount of the vikings been ruthless is against monks and civilians.... or against a very small force of arm people.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Yes, viking armies did fight national armies in what are now France and England, several times. The Battle of Stamford Bridge was probably the last major example and Harald Hadrade was defeated by the English army under Harold Godwinson.

[@jcorbett9620]

The Viking army were also supported by English rebels under Harold's brother Tostig Godwinson - when you mention people siding with "the enemy" for personal/political gain.

[@jcorbett9620]

I think it's you who hasn't got a clue. The "Normans" were NORSEMEN - i.e. Scandinavians, mainly from Denmark, Norway and Iceland, who settled in the Northern part of France, giving the name to the coastal area of France, called Normandy. So yes "they took over a part of what is now modern France"

[@TheShiz9797]

J Corbett They didnt actually take it though, they were sold titles.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

@@TheShiz9797 danegeld

[@howtodrawgood4876]

i love how simple but informative these videos are (: also actual viking talk starts at 5:00

[@blacklight4720]

Woodin is like Odin but he tells bad jokes :D

[@onlyfence-frankwalter7913]

hihi... Godwin’s law...

[@scholagladiatoria]

I feel like Godwin's Law is its own Godwin's Law, because the minute someone says Godwin's Law, it's because they can't respond to the Nazi point :-D

[@onlyfence-frankwalter7913]

Oh I could respond to the Nazi point, but as a german I can only do it with a bad consience - and I can't imagine myself playing a Nazi in reenactment (nor RL)... :-D but never the less, I see Godwin's Law more like a tradition ;-)

[@hrotha]

Is Godwin's Law something about not blaming him for the assassination of Ælfred æþeling?

[@brucetucker4847]

I don't think the Nazi comparison is apt, though. The Vikings weren't nearly as bad by the standards of their time as the Nazis were by the standards of theirs.

[@edi9892]

Funfact: many from N UK, Iceland, Norway, Sweden... have a tendency for slit eyes. This most probably comes from Sami descent, which in turn came originally from asia.

[@edi9892]

listerinesmiles in a way yes. In the end we all came from Africa. However, most didn't stop in Europe and some came back from Asia and later people came again from Asia. In the meantime some mutations occurred with various consequences for our phenotype. Similarly, our languages changed on our way. This is why in the SE we say Pfannkuchen and NE pancake and why Bask has nothing to do with any other European language...

[@ebreiss]

Into Europeans originated in Asia, too.

[@Barberserk]

In sort, people move around. :)

[@AdventureThroughLife]

edi There is some evidence suggesting humans originated somewhere in Europe. The out of Africa theory is not necessarily the best one anymore.

[@davidbriggs264]

Adventure, until I see some VERY strong evidence against it, I'll believe that humanity originated in Africa, period. For one thing, for a great many years, Europeans felt superior to Africans and humanity originating in Europe simply feeds that belief. On another note, it is MY belief that at one time around 200,000 years ago (or more) there were a number of subspecies of Homo Sapiens (China, India, Europe, Africa and the Middle East at the very least), and where is the most likely location for them to meet and intermingle? The Middle East. That is where I personally believe that MODERN Homo Sapiens originated, but early Homo Sapiens originated in Tropical Africa, largely left there and went to other areas to colonize them. Once there, they diverged in numerous ways, before coming together again in the Middle East to become modern Homo Sapiens.

[@al11196]

A wise man once said, speak softly but carry a large axe. This video is very persuasive. Also the feeling towards the vikings is relatable as a person of Slavic descent.

[@DemonRazor88]

What axe head type is that?

[@FoulUnderworldCreature]

We wuz vikings n shieeet mang!

[@emporororretargds8601]

African Vikings

[@elmerkappell2318]

I wonder if any Vikings ever made it to West Africa to nick some women. They made it to my country, Canada! XD

[@MacDorsai]

"English" is derived from "Angle" and you identify as Anglo-Saxon. YOUR ancestors, the Angles Saxons (and Frisians, etc.) invaded and took most of the island from the Celtic Britons and Roman Britons who were already there. The Irish Scoti invaded the northern part of the island and took most of it from the Picts. In the process, they gave their name to the land, Scotland. So I have to fundamentally disagree with your premise that Danish/Viking invasions of England was bad for the English. It was bad for the Saxons then, but Danish and Norwegian genes are present in a great many English today. Especially in the northeast. I love your videos Matt, and I've learned a lot from you, but on this point (not the entire video), I think your logic fails.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Sorry I don't understand what you are saying here. The Anglo-Saxon invasions were bad, but the viking invasions were good?

[@scholagladiatoria]

Surely you have to argue that either both were bad or both were good? I'd argue both were bad for the natives.

[@MacDorsai]

Hi Matt. That is basically it. Every invasion was bad for the people on the short end of the stick. The Roman invasion was bad for the Britons. Saxon invasions were bad for the Romano-Britons. Danish invasions were bad for the Anglo-Saxons (and the Irish and Scots). The Norman invasion was bad for the Britons, Saxons and Danish-English. So to say that an Englishman to role play as a Viking would be like a Pole role playing as a Nazi/Deutsche Wehrmacht isn't quite on point unless your Englishman's DNA is frozen in time to Anglo-Saxon with no Danish, Norwegian or Norman. I'm nit picking as 99.9% of your video is great and you don't often leave nits for the picking.

[@vytas5584]

Invasions are bad... m'kay?

[@MacDorsai]

Absolutely...for the invaded. Human history is a history of invasions. We are all the product of the last successful invasion. I see no reason they will not continue. As an American, our ancestry is pretty diverse due to invasion (pre-immigration) and intermarriage (post-immigration). Out of curiosity, I had my DNA tested about a year ago and more than 50% came from the British Isles split between Irish-Scottish-Welsh and Scottish-English-Welsh. Another 12% Scandinavian. I had a good laugh there because the Scandinavian could easily be the result of Scandinavian DNA injection into the English genome. I also have central European and 3% Neanderthal. So I feel confident in the statement that some of my ancestors invaded and were fairly nasty to other of my ancestors.

[@Ezyasnos]

The occurrence of Norwegian genes mixed with British/Gaelic genes does not prove anything but people being relatives of each other. Viking raiders went for booty and slaves, sure, but they also just settled in the - back then - sparsely dense areas, and over time marriages became common between the different villages. In the Netherlands there was this story of the razing of Dorestad, and the founding of 'Wijk bij Duurstede' (translated: the neighbourhood near Dorestad). Later, evidence showed that Wijk bij Duurstede was founded while Dorestad still thrived and that Dorestad had never been razed. Wijk bij Duurstede just essentially outcompeted Dorestad eventually. Not that there hadn't been skirmishes between these towns, but that has been normal well beyond the medieval times. (that also made towns and cities take sides in disputes like the Guelphs and Ghibbilines, if the rival city sided with side A, then automatically the other city chose side B). You can also know the origin (British, Viking, Angle, Saxon or Frisian) of a town or city by the name of that place. York for instance is an abbreviation of Yorvik - like Wijk (Vik) bij Duurstede it's founded by Vikings.

[@mtodd4723]

Good on you ! Great video .

[@rasnac]

All this idealisation of vikings is closely related to Western european "Aryan" racism of the 19th and 20th centuries.

[@brucetucker4847]

I don;t think so. SOME of it is, but not all by any means. I actually know a few Asatru practitioners and they despise the racists who want to co-opt that movement. But the ones I know are approaching it more from the vein of neopaganism in general, and that mostly has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with dissatisfaction with the ethics and teachings of the Abrahamic religions.

[@hrotha]

I'm sure what you say of Ásatrú practitioners is true because It's the same with early medieval historians and history aficionados, but it's dangerous to downplay the extent of that racist/Nazi co-opting attempt. It's a very real problem that people in those fields need to figure out how to confront more effectively.

[@LegionTacticoolCutlery]

You know what will be cool Matt? If you read this that is? History of the different vikings of the times not just the vikings that raided the west. But the Rus Vikings, Varangian, etc. Vikings that went east and south to Constantinople. Normans too because they played a big history for a few hundred years.

[@daltoncook209]

Rough topic and you handled it well

[@2bingtim]

"I've no particular axe to grind..." Matt says whilst holding an axe prominantly!!!

[@awlach8]

One more reason I absolutely love this channel... Objective information is a rarity.

[@nowthenzen]

Two wrongs don't make a right, but 3 lefts do!

[@Woedans]

Hej Matt, any plans on making new video's on the Anglo-Saxon/Vendel age like you did with Paul Mortimer? I think that time in history is highly underrated.

[@EattinThurs61]

We are all listening attentively, nervously watching the axe swings.

[@Prospro8]

Simon Schama in one of his books said (approximately) 'This vision of the Vikings as traders singing their Nordic sagas as they happily sailed in search of their latest market opportunity probably wouldn't have cut much ice with the monks of Lindisfarne'. You always do have to wonder about non-Scandinavian people, often overweight bikers, reenacting these tall, disciplined, well-preened mailed athletes and martial artists who rowed across oceans. I wonder if Matt will do a reaction video to Clive Donner's movie 'Alfred the Great' from 1968, reasonably authentic. Matt's right here: many Viking afficionados tend to be adolescent compensators not properly initiated!

[@darkart7176]

This is why your channel is one of the best ones on youtube - you stay polite and as neutral as possible and yet you do not sugar coat things. Keep doing an awesome job and anyone who doesnt like it can go fly a kite. We need more cool heads with unbiased views and less SJW/PC bullsh!t.

[@uaamf]

The way he decries the theft of women and sheep in the same way is ...interesting.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

Traditional christian marriage vows were in terms of women being chattels.

[@worldiscoverercanari]

Honesty is definitely a greath human value!.Nice comment.

[@whitefoxkeeper]

I am a huge fan of Viking Viking culture and a studier of the Norse Mythology, and whilst I find them both incredibly interesting to read about, I think alot of people have the same interest in them that we do in more recent murderers. It's interesting to hear about the horrors they committed, and some take it a step further and defend it all whilst there is nothing truly to defend, soley because they enjoy the concept far more than they likely probably should. I like others opinions on the matter, so videos this are both interesting and mildly comforting to hear others share similar thoughts :)

[@btrenninger1]

People like pirates, vikings are pirates. Except actual pirates which they hate.

[@AccipiterF1]

Who knew saying that murder, theft and rape are bad would be such a controversial topic?

[@Tumasch]

"VIKINGS, RARGH, LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT VIKINGS, I GOT AN AXE" - Matt Easton, circa 2018

[@goldenageofdinosaurs7192]

“Humans are shit, what else can I say?” Matt Easton-Tellin’ it straight in 2018!

[@aurourus6894]

I do love myself some dine axes.

[@jasoncowley4718]

"TAKE ME TO ICELAND!!!" Bow chicka bow wow.

[@dewutz74]

Of course you can like vikings as an Anglo-Saxon. Uthred did!