(January 29, 2012 at 8:05 pm)Xavier Wrote: There is a general bias against the Vikings because they were Pagans and non English/non Latin speaking.
They are portrayed as violent and uncultured but I do not think they any more brutal than Christian civilizations during the Dark Ages such as the Normans.

The Normans were vikings.

Quote:The Normans (in French: Normands) were the people who gave their name to Normandy, a region in northern France. They were descended from Norse Viking conquerors of the territory and the native population of Frankish[2] and Gallo-Roman stock.[3] Their identity emerged initially in the first half of the 10th century, and gradually evolved over succeeding centuries.

Quote:The English name "Normans" comes from the French words Normans / Normanz, plural of Normant,[4] that is itself borrowed from Old Low Franconian Nortmann "Northman"[5] or directly from Old Norse Norðmaðr, Latinized in Nortmannus (recorded in Medieval Latin, 9th century) to mean "Norseman" or "Viking".[6]

And they were brutal, but not all the time.

Quote:There is a general bias against the Vikings

Their first recorded attack was against a monastery, though.

Gotta love 'em for that!

Yet we still have viking names for the days of the week...well, most of them that is.

(January 30, 2012 at 4:32 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:There is a general bias against the Vikings

Their first recorded attack was against a monastery, though.

Gotta love 'em for that!

But did they finish the job? Nooooooo.

(January 30, 2012 at 4:37 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Yet we still have viking names for the days of the week...well, most of them that is.

And what do you think 'Christmas' is? With that pine tree and all the lights.

(January 30, 2012 at 4:37 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(January 30, 2012 at 4:32 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:There is a general bias against the Vikings

Their first recorded attack was against a monastery, though.

Gotta love 'em for that!

But did they finish the job? Nooooooo.

They stomped the shit out of that monastery, though.

It scared the shit out of the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic Xtians! And out of Xtians and heathens alike along Europe's coasts, and inland navigable waterways. Didn't the Vikings even sack the predecessor of Stalingrad/Wolgograd? And raid Cyprus?
Afaik the Vikings were equal opportunity rapists, killers, robbers, and sackers. They came for your gold and your women. They weren't looking for a skydaddy. They already had an entire opera of gods up north, thank you very much. Didn't need any wuss nailed in a loincloth!

I was to understand "Viking" was an occupation a bit much like golf. I was to also understand that the 'so called vikings' were traders and farmers....

Have I missed something from my history lessons??

(January 30, 2012 at 3:45 am)Chuck Wrote:

(January 30, 2012 at 12:06 am)Minimalist Wrote: For once I agree with you, G-C.

Red-letter Day eh?

The devil is in the details, min. Undoubtedly his history didn't say anything about what a crock of shit christainity had been in each of the eras he mentioned, nor does it contain any era or region about which christainity has nothing to say.

You want a biased history and that is not what history is about. We learn what happened in the past and then it's up to us to decide if it was good, bad or otherwise. History teachers and professors are to present history as it took place, they should never place an opinion about it's effect one way or the other, unless asked, that's what debates are for.

(January 31, 2012 at 12:28 am)Godschild Wrote:

(January 30, 2012 at 3:45 am)Chuck Wrote:

(January 30, 2012 at 12:06 am)Minimalist Wrote: For once I agree with you, G-C.

Red-letter Day eh?

The devil is in the details, min. Undoubtedly his history didn't say anything about what a crock of shit christainity had been in each of the eras he mentioned, nor does it contain any era or region about which christainity has nothing to say.

You want a biased history and that is not what history is about. We learn what happened in the past and then it's up to us to decide if it was good, bad or otherwise. History teachers and professors are to present history as it took place, they should never place an opinion about it's effect one way or the other, unless asked, that's what debates are for.

Wrong, history is ridden with alterations and interpretations. Havn't you heard the saying The Winners of the Wars wrote the history of their enemies and the events that took place, even more evident in your religion since they were going to make the bible much bigger but weeded out the stories they didnt want in the bible, had it of been different people it would've probably looked different.

It feels like I lose an IQ point every time you type something or I see that bastardized version of Pascals Wager in your sig as if you fucking scare Atheists with your eternal torture fantasy.