What's /pol/'s thoughts on Vikings? And are they white?
They represent the best aspects of white men.
>Culture based on Honor.
>Life is committed to physical aptitude
>Epic work ethic
>Carved out huge empires like the Kievan Rus
>Literally held the line when all other westerners had routed against kebab (Varangian Guard)
>Found the New World first
>Invented all kinds of awesome shit, like modern carbon steel, long range navigation and shipbuilding
>Had a free society including democracy
>Did recreational mushrooms to understand their connection to nature.
>their women were raised to be just as courageous and hard working.
Don't forget about the trade, and their spoken and written canon.
Isn't it rather niggerish, though, to kill, steal, and rape without provocation?
It may be that vikings represent, to us, anyway, more masculinity than brutality, but that latter element can't be ignored.
Really cool people, and definitely seemed to put some pride for the white race, but they're highly overrated, yet underrated at the same time.
Thanks to Nordiboo goths and metal heads
Thanks to fucking Mediterranean faggots
The plundering of other nations may be "niggerish" but at the same time they weren't fighting defenseless priests like the church would have you believe.
Altogether the viking raids proved only to soften the region for invasion and then long term occupation.
Living in the far north is extremely difficult, and in many ways raiding was the only way to subsist or even grow in any meaningful way. Had the vikings not raided they would have either died out or been crushed centuries later by a much higher populated Europe. They didn't and its why England, Germany, France, Prussia and many other European regions have Aryans at all.
I guess it's confirmed then
The best civilizations were made by non-whites while "nordic white masterrace" were rapists and murderers just like the blacks they hate today, except they would have been much less educated
White blood is inferior. History proves this
You're moving the goalposts. Regardless if those other three groups were white or not, they raped, pillaged, and stole as well, if not in a greater amount.
Even if you said it was for a "cause" like expanding an empire and all that, it's the same fucking thing, even if the people they attacked fought back.
Romans attacked everyone, raped, made people whore slaves, etc. How is that not nigger-like?
There's literally nothing wrong with raiding when you have no other choice to survive.
Factually, the Vikings engages in exceptionally more peaceful trade than violent raiding, and raiding was only practiced by a handful of tribes at any one time, usually the lower caste tribes who had no arable land at their disposal and had no other way to subsist and/or grow.
oh so now that they're the best civilization they 'may be' white?
The ratio of accomlishment:rape ratio was much better in these civilizations than the inferior white ones. I guess it just goes to show you who the real animals are
>raiding is bad
it's bad when you're doing it to a society that provides you prosperity
the vikings went to other lands to plunder
they didnt rape and steal from their own people
niggers did and do
I'm not referring to who's white and who's not. Im saying that you can't call Vikings niggers if they happened to rape and pillage since other groups around Europe did as well, if not more.
>Im saying that you can't call Vikings niggers if they happened to rape and pillage since other groups around Europe did as well, if not more.
>So what if vikings raped and pillaged more than other cultures at the time, everyone else did it to an extent so that makes it okay
Literally a black person argument
>vikings raiding for survival and enrichment against foreigners
>medieval era of scarcity and hardship
>niggers destroying their own societies from witihin
>the information age of material abundance
>comparing vikings to niggers
Sure thing, dumbfuck.
All you did is look at the "if not more" part. You see to have ignored the rest of the argument.
All civilizations raided and raped, the difference with the vikings and the rest, is that Vikings didn't make monolithic structures with fancy engineering. You can't call them niggers because of the raiding and rapes. If you had to, call them that because they didn't have muh technology.
oh yeah, all those tribes were the best of friends. They would never rape and pillage their fellow northern europeans
but the 'if not more' part isn't true. The vikings are the ones who are remembered for their raping and pillaging. Of course they had their primitive civilizations and society, every culture had that, it was required to survive but the vikings are the epitome of rape and pillage. Literally the niggers of time
>They would never rape and pillage their fellow northern europeans
If they did it was during war, not an LA chimpout.
But go ahead and keep trying to call some of the world's greatest sailors and traders petty niggers.
We're all laughing at you.
>oh yeah, all those tribes were the best of friends. They would never rape and pillage their fellow northern europeans
Yeah, it's not like the Romans, Franks, Gauls, Celts, Greeks, etc etc etc never warred with their own internal factions, you fucking dumbfuck.
>The vikings are the ones who are remembered for their raping and pillaging.
Because most of what we know about them comes from Roman propaganda and unreliable biased witnesses, which became amplified down through the ages because despite your pathetic understanding of reality, history through the ages is not very accurate or rigorously committed to truth.
The Chinese invented superior ships and navigational techniques long before the Vikings did
They didn't have an influence on the Vikings (who created their own indiginously) but the Chinese made better shit first
Viking ships were purpose built for river raiding but they just also happened to be good in the open ocean
The Chinese junks never sailed open seas because they were mostly used for trading in the Malay region
No, actually I'm going by the actual archaeological facts we've been uncovering in modern times, which are replacing all of the retarded Roman and Christian caricatures that polluted the truth for so long.
Thank you based science.
Finding swords and gold trinkets all over Europe is not indicative of civilization building it simply shows that they were widespread
The Vikings got BTFO anyway and had to retreat back to their frozen wasteland except for the few who stayed in the British Isles
No actually it's the other way around, their ships were purpose built for sailing the open seas which happened to make them exceptional river craft because of their shallow hulls.
They invented the shallow hull so that their ships would bend and flex over the tops of large waves, instead of having the ship take massive stresses against a main spar that rode deep in the water.
Only white propaganda makes you think they were the best sailors and traders
The best traders were in the Mediterranean, the arabs, in the hotspot of the world. These are the people who had the most resources for intelligent expansion of knowledge. The best sailors would likely have been there too, at the very best the vikings were on par with other cultures sailors. The only reason people think they were the best is because they were the only ones in the area
And of course they didn't riot in cities against the government, because it didn't exist. They couldn't even make it to a civilized society, let alone riot against it. I classify splitting into little groups then waging war on your neighbors over some sheep to be much more degenerate behavior than anything niggers do today
The romans and greeks had riots because of their huge expansions and inability to control the lesser educated people they conquered. The difference is that these are the niggers of their society rioting against the governments. The vikings were just savages, white intelligence at it's finest, still quarreling with their neighbors because of some different hairstyle. Nothing more than barbarians who struggled to design societies the rest of the world had already surpassed
>The best traders were in the Mediterranean, the arabs, in the hotspot of the world.
Except you're a fucking retard because sailing the Mediterranean is like a Caribbean cruise compared to sailing the high seas of the Atlantic you fucking landlubber dumbfuck.
>The romans and greeks had riots
"Riots." REALLY NOW. I think you need to pick up a book and recuse yourself until you're not a goddamn fucking dumbass anymore and know even an inkling of European history.
No they were shallow hulled and single-decked because they were built for river raiding and to survive the North Sea
There's no argument that they were purpose built to cross the Atlantic, just because they did doesn't mean they were designed to do so
Either way they were master shipbuilders as were the Chinese and even the Arabs who invented the lateen sail
Junks also are shallow draft ships made for trading in shallow waters
I don't think the Chinese expanded further east than the South China Sea though
>Nothing more than barbarians who struggled to design societies the rest of the world had already surpassed
inb4 butthurt force of VIDF
VIKING SHILLS= BTFO
yes riots. Because they had civilization.
Any war they were engaged in was to conquer more land and expand their empire, not throw rocks at their neighbors and dance around large rocks
>Any war they were engaged in was to conquer more land and expand their empire
>Any raids the Vikings were engaged in was to conquer more land and expand their wealth and influence
>this makes them niggers
Yeah ok dumbass.
That's what he's implying by saying hurr the chinks did it first.
If they're worlds apart what difference does it make? Innovation is innovation, and the fucking greeks and romans did it before even they did.
And in b4 some autist comes in explaining the difference between bi and triremes and the fucking viking longships.
but the vikings would destroy most places they went. They didn't bring civilization to new land, they brought barbarian ways of thinking and ritualistic behavior
How can anyone justify whites as being superior when they couldn't even create anything new, always stealing from other cultures. Their expansion was pitiful compared to the asians and the Mediterraneans
If it wasn't for the ineptitude of whites in surrounding countries to the romans and greeks, they would have never collapsed and the world would be speaking latin today
>The Vikings got BTFO anyway and had to retreat back to their frozen wasteland except for the few who stayed in the British Isles
Except for, you know, those guys who took over Normandy and went on to rule England.
Are they white? Are you a retard?
Who would be white, if not the Scandinavians?
> Yes, I am actually a white Scandinavian, but that doesn't change the fact.
No they didn't you fucking idiot. The Vikings preferred being paid tribute to having to fight, and killing people who don't submit to you is just how raiding goes. Pay or die. They didn't sail thousands of miles on the harsh open seas to say "oh, you don't want to pay, oh ok then, sorry to have bothered you. have a nice day." You're such a fucking dumb Christian cuck it's pathetic.
>couldn't even create anything new
You mean like the first ships capable of sailing high seas? How about high carbon steel?
>Their expansion was pitiful compared to the asians and the Mediterraneans
They weren't expansionists. Their populations were absurdly small compared to the swarthy milkboys that lived in warm, abundant luxury.
You are such a dainty faggot, why are you even trying to make an argument?
>vikings rarely conquered land
Except for you know, founding Russia and settling Normandie and the large eastern part of England.
>Their empire grew by spreading their seed wherever they went, like savages
My sides. Viking empire? They were a handful of petty kings living at the roof of Europe. It took about 200 years before proper trade relations were established and they turned Christian - mainly because trading in dried cod (back then that was the potato) was more profitable than raiding.
/pol/, learn more per-history will you.
In all honesty (and this is coming from a Norwegian) "we" probably didn't invent the steel, it was probably imported from Damascus. However, the vikings made superior swords from this steel.
Not sure who the actual smith was though, but the vikings were the only ones who had them.
Also, for people interested in history, it's very clear that although the vikings did some bad things, they also contributed to building societies, and often got the locals on their side. They were so few in numbers that they would never have been able to hold i.e. England without the support of the locals...
>High carbon steel was invented by the Japanese
Lol, no it wasn't you fucking idiot. Japanese steel was exceptionally low quality because of the ores they had available to them, and their invention was folding the steel and mixing various hardnesses to achieve a flexible blade that kept an edge. They had to do this because if they made a whole sword out of their inferior steel it would be so brittle it would shatter in battle, which happened routinely and is why certain bladesmiths became renowned for being masters who could consistently produce blades that were warfare capable.
>Their blades were far superior to Viking blades
Only uneducated weeaboo faggots actually believe this because their worthless otaku brains prefer weeaboo romanticism to historical fact.
The reality is that Japanese swords were actually garbage compared to European swords. The only reason they were notable is because the Japanese were clever enough to make something passable with their inferior metallurgy.
>widely considered to be the pinnacle of swordsmithing
By weeaboo autists that don't actually know fucking anything about metallurgy, blacksmithing, or warfare.
You're probably one of those autist retards that thinks the Katana was routinely used in battle.
Fact was, drawing your katana was a distant and undesirable third option after a spear or nodachi was made unavailable to you.
As a Norwegian, I can tell you that the obvious name "Normandie" is etymologically from "Nordmann" -> Norwegian (man from "nord")
"Russia" -> "Russland" -> probably from the Norwegian word for "rowing" -> "Ro" -> "Rossland"... because they rowed their boats there...
Captcha: Had nor
You're clearly right, how could I not know that the some of the whitest people in Europe were just a bunch of niggers, while actual black people are hard working and have many great cultures.
This just shows that janitors either don't care or are shills themselves
>Invented all kinds of awesome shit, like modern carbon steel,
Nah that one's unfortunately not true. They learned it while traveling the east with their top-notch ships and navigation though, admittedly resulting in some crazy good smithing like the ulfberth swords. AFAIK the only euros to make good steel by themselves were the celts.
>are widely considered to be the pinnacle of swordsmithing
Not really. You think of the modern katanas. There has been many variations since they started making them. We are only thinking they were considered the pinnacle because we're told so.
In reality they were pretty much the only type of sword the japanese had to draw on, and it was only the samurai that were allowed to use them.
Japan is a small island, and you can regulate that easy. It's basically ensuring only your military has the best weapons, like today.
They transported animals from Africa to China, seems like they made decent ships.
They just turned inwards at the wrong time and abandoned exploration, then the Europeans took off with it and went on to colonize most of the world
Lol, a katana made with modern metallurgy and smithing technology against a sword that is locked in vices and prevented from deflecting or flexing against the impact.
This is the proof weaboos need to feel vindicated in their mental illness.
>Katanas are able to slice right through plate armor which the Vikings didn't even have
Modern katanas. The Japanese didn't really use full metal knight-ish armours.
And the vikings lived in an age where the ring mail shirt was the pinnacle of protection. Only the Persians only ever had plate armoured knights, and that was during the Roman eras.
>sold Europeans as slaves to Kebab by the thousands
The Varangians were mainly bodyguards, these guys did the real work on the battlefield.
That's because the Japanese understood that using a weapon with greater reach is a superior first attack strategy to just running about like a chicken with its head cut off flailing a longsword about
>The Japanese didn't really use full metal knight-ish armours.
They kinda did, which makes it even more clear the guy's being a provocative rascal. Metal armor was fine protection.
The best katanas were produced by swordsmiths in the 16th and 17th centuries
The way they are crafted today is the same as what back then using the same techniques and the same furnaces (obviously not taking about chink factory blades)
I don't now.
When there was war, be it the English French or Germans or Swedes.
They didn't where afraid to plunder churches or villages and rape.
I know one time in Flanders the French Army stole a fucking clockwork from a church cause they where jellly of its technical advancement.
It's interesting to watch you expose your complete and utter ignorance of the evolution of martial combat in the East and the West.
There's a reason spears were largely abandoned in Western warfare.
It's called armor.
Look it up.
Which is exactly the type of steel the viking swords were made of...
If your point is that the Persians had better smiths, I will agree, but viking swords were still far superior to anything else in europe around that time...
Nah, the celts had "viking swords" way before the vikings did. Doesn't mean the viking didn't make very good swords once they adopted the metallurgy techniques required to do so.
>Isn't it rather niggerish, though, to kill, steal, and rape without provocation?
A new theory about the viking age was that it was Scandinavians fighting a holy/culture war against christianization. Started a little bit after Charlemagne's Saxon Wars.
You have nothing to back up your claim, mate.
They can with some effort, but you'll break it. A knights two handed sword is better though, because you use the weight of the sword to use it as a spear to pierce armour.
>The way they are crafted today is the same as what back then using the same techniques and the same furnaces
That's what we're led to believe, and in all probability the only technique not changed is how you fold your sword. The quality of steel and balancing the carbon has surely changed a lot.
As you say, the best katanas were produced in the 16th and 17 centuries. By this time modernization had come to Japan.
I am actally descended from the same family as "Rollo" of Normandie (obviously not his direct descendant, but from that family. He was from an island right outside where I grew up...
Not that it really matters, it was literally 1000 years ago....
>That's because the ceramic tile sewn over leather is a superior armor
Not really. It all depends on what weapons you're aiming to defend yourself with. All is cause and effect. Causes being weapons, effects being the armours to protect yourself from the weapons with.
Their auxilia counterparts used spears. They did the heavier lifting on the battle field on account of them being more expendable.
>because you use the weight of the sword to use it as a spear to pierce armour.
The chief way to kill a knight is to trip him on his back, grasp the blade of your own sword midway down, and thrust down. Or use a stilletto in his eyeslit.
Only really started to use metal armor after they had contact with the Portuguese.
Even fire arms they where using like a 1000 years ago before the Portuguese but after they saw the arquebus they started to copy it and use it as a standard arms in their armies.
Vikings and celts had contact with the Mediterranean civilizations as they did find like Carthaginian/Phoenician coins and the like.
And they fought in the Byzantine army as mercenaries.
No, they built log houses.
>But Scandinavians were living in mud huts while their white counterparts were building cathedrals and castles
Advanced civilizations first developed in warm climates near great rivers. The scandinavians were much more busy surviving.
I will admit our culture was lacking behind...but it wasn't THAT bad...
Pic related, but not from viking era...
Don't they use the same excuse too?
>B-but it was difficult to survive in that environment
You're only there because nobody else wants too and your race is too pathetic to do anything about it
>He believes Muslims were responsible for "Islamic Golden age"
>Pretty easy to take credit for things after you've plundered all those smart Christians :^)
I was implying that no one ever gave a fuck about religion. Islam was basically the arabs excuse to gather the willpower to invade other countries, it's strictly politics.
And the iranians were Zarathusts(sp?) not christian
come on now, "gangstas" live in a 1st world country with electricity, sanitation and a welfare state and they commit crime against their own neighborhood usually
it's a dumb comparison
What are you talking about? Bannerlord?
I wish there were a more convenient time for late antiquity and the early middle ages that wasn't 'The Dark Ages'.
A Total War game set then has also been announced.
>brytenwalda being a fully fledged game