I actually want to see that film (Apocolypto) -shrug-draconic chronicler wrote:Yes, "green" dragoons are cool, I did Napoleonic French Dragoons when reenacting this period in Europe. Still have the uniform kicking around someplace. 18th Regiment with yellow facings, 1808-1812 uniform. i cast the buttons myself based on originals I found on one of my "battlefield archaeology" expeditions.
But Patriot was a disgraceful movie, depicting the British as unspeakable savages in the AWI, for which there is no historical documentation. Mel Gibson never made a historically accurate movie. His latest, Apocolypto, was no exception.
I was referring to the part about burning women and children alive inside a church. No commissioned British Officer would have dreamed of doing something so barbaric in the 18th century. They were "gentlemen" and could never have such an atrocity connected to them. Gibson knew nothing about the period. They were just "nazis" wearing red coats (or green).+ Silver - Orbs + wrote:I actually want to see that film (Apocolypto) -shrug-draconic chronicler wrote:Yes, "green" dragoons are cool, I did Napoleonic French Dragoons when reenacting this period in Europe. Still have the uniform kicking around someplace. 18th Regiment with yellow facings, 1808-1812 uniform. i cast the buttons myself based on originals I found on one of my "battlefield archaeology" expeditions.
But Patriot was a disgraceful movie, depicting the British as unspeakable savages in the AWI, for which there is no historical documentation. Mel Gibson never made a historically accurate movie. His latest, Apocolypto, was no exception.
As for the British being unspeakable savages...they were right to some degree. I'm British myself and I'll admit that. After all, we might know about their lives and tactics and such but I doubt we'll ever be able to get into their 'minds' persay- we can't really analyse and judge their personalities.
Ie, Colonel William Tavington was based on Lt.Colonel Banastre Tarleton. Which there is evidence that he whored, gambled and drank but was an excellent abet reckless leader.
So yeah....I had to reply to that bit
I believe he was referring to back in the "good old days". And yes, witches did sacrifice animals and even humans back then. Even today some practitioners of witchcraft still sacrifice animals, as law enforcement case files and court records prove.d There can be little doubt that humans are still sacrificed too, in places like Africa.manofthewolf wrote:If you bothered to read the Rede oe learn the Three Fold Law then you'd know that we dont and never sacrificed anything.
Actually guy, it was somebody else that brought up the sacrifice thing with witchcraft. Try reading the posts again. . I was simply trying to clarify it becasue you didn't seem to under.manofthewolf wrote:I get the feeling your just arguing for the sake of arguing and trying to prove me wrong. Oh and your definition of witchcraft is different than mine. oh and I noticed you didnt answer my earlier questions? Trying to hide something are you?
Quote from yourself: "the nonsensical false Gods that the REAL Vikings all rejected once they were introduced to Christianity", "disowned their powerless, pagan Gods", etc. These kinds of colorful sentences can be interpreted in more than one way. Though, if that wasn't your intention, my mistake will be my excuse.draconic chronicler wrote:I don't believe I said anywhere in my posts that "Christians were better", or more humane.
I guess, you have missed my point. You said that Vikings were "incredibly violent and bloodthirsty people"; I pointed out that it was a common trait of many nations/kingdoms/clans/you-name-it in those times. Since the people murdered were Christians, it was appropriate to give the example of the Crusades since it was an important part of the context in which the Vikings' actions were judged.draconic chronicler wrote:I am well-aware of the Christian atrocities and that really has nothing to do with the basic discussion.
I have checked around to see what I could found on Vikings' hygiene. So here it is (with references):draconic chronicler wrote:And you seem to be mistaken about Vikings being "less filthy" than other Europeans. In southern Europe, regular bathing remained a popular concept even after the fall of the Roman Empire for it was part of that region's culture.
Not exactly what I consider to be extremely filthy for the time. Also, archeological evidences have showed that Vikings used reindeer antler to make combs, supporting the idea that Vikings did care about their hair and their appearance, which is closely connected to hygiene. Tweezers and ear ladle were some other common things that have been found (evidences suggesting they washed themselves carefully).Swedish Vikings - Luleä University (Sweden) wrote: The Arabic messenger Ibn Fadlan, who was in Bulgar during the summer of 922, saw the Vikings arrive, and he wrote: "I have never before seen such perfect bodies; they were tall like palm trees, blonde, with a few of them red. They do not wear any jackets or kaftaner, the men instead wear dress which covers one side of the body but leaves one hand free. Every one of them brings with him an Axe, a sword and a knife. They never leave these things. Their swords are broad, grooved, and of French make. From their bellies to their necks they are tattooed in green with trees and other pictures. All of their women have a small box attached over the breast. This can be made of iron, silver, copper or gold. On each box there is a ring to which a small knife is attached. Around their necks they wear necklaces of gold and silver."
The Vikings obviously made an impression on the messenger, but he also writes about their bad hygiene. He continues, "Each morning the girl comes early in the morning with a deep dish of water. She gives this to her master who in turn washes his hands, face and hair. When he is through the girl takes the dish to the man nearest the master. This man repeats the process. And so the dish wanders from man to man until everyone has washed himself in the water."
To Ibn Fadlan's friends this story must have been horrifying, as they were educated Muslims. They would probably never think of washing themselves in anything other than flowing water.
A History of the Vikings - Gwyn Jones wrote: Perhaps the most telling comment comes from the pen of English cleric John of Wallingford, prior of St. Fridswides, who complained bitterly that the Viking Age men of the Danelaw combed their hair, took a bath on Saturday, and changed their woolen garments frequently, and that they performed these un-Christian and heathen acts in an attempt to seduce high-born English women
Gwyn Jones. A History of the Vikings. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1968.
Also, someone needs to keep in mind that the Vikings who sailed around the world had a worse hygiene than those who stayed at home (hygiene was generally worse on ships than other places especially hundreds of years ago).Two Late Saxon Combs from the Longmarket Excavations - Ian Riddler wrote: It is reported in the chronicle attributed to John of Wallingford that the Danes, thanks to their habit of combing their hair every day, of bathing every Saturday and regularly changing their clothes, were able to undermine the virtue of married women and even seduce the daughters of nobles to be their mistresses
Ian Riddler. Two Late Saxon Combs from the Longmarket Excavations. Canterbury's Archaeology 1989/1990, The 14th Annual Report of Canterbury Archaeological Trust Ltd.
Gareth Williams wrote: Surviving accounts of Viking activity were almost exclusively written by churchmen. These include monastic chronicles, such as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and similar Frankish and Irish Annals, which outline broadly what happened, at what date. There are also sources of a more directly religious nature, such as the much-quoted letters of Alcuin, and Wulfstan's famous 'Sermon of the Wolf', both of which chose to interpret the Viking raids as God's punishment on the Anglo-Saxons for their sins. Even the chronicles reflect the fact that the Vikings often attacked monasteries for their wealth, which created an obvious bias against them, and the hostile tone of these contemporary accounts has done much to create the popular image of Viking atrocities. However, modern historians have noted that the same sources show Christian rulers behaving equally unpleasantly, but without being condemned on religious grounds.
Gareth Williams, curator of Early Medieval Coins at the British Museum. He specialises in the history of the Viking Age, with particular interests in the nature of royal power, and in the relationship between history and literature.
If you have experts in the field of study saying otherwise (and just for the records, I am not even remotely close to be a Vikings historian), then there is certainly a lack of consensus on the subject and I doubt that if experts cannot agree amongst themselves that this debate can be solved on this message board.Anna Ritchie wrote: The first Viking raids were hit-and-run affairs. There was no co-ordination and no long-term plan behind them. Raids were not even a new hazard in a society well-used to warfare on any scale from local skirmishes to great battles. The Vikings' sin was to attack and pillage the holy monasteries, the sacred places of the Christian world. And the leaders of that world were quick to condemn them. One of those leaders whose words have come down to us was Alcuin of York.
Anna Ritchie, archaeologist and a Viking specialist. She has excavated numerous sites, notably Buckquoy, in Orkney. She is author of Viking Scotland, as well as many other books on Scottish archaeology.
Witches are people who got burned at the stake because they were accused of doing magic / worshipping the devil / being possessed / dealing with spirits / heresy / etc... human sacrifice as very little do with this.DragonRider wrote: Witches and Pagans practised human sacrifice to worship their gods. That is why they were burnt at the stake in the olden days. They were given the chance to stop but didn't take it.
...
But to reiterate what I said earlier, witchs sacrificed humans and animals. Even today some are still sacrificing babies.
And you claim that witches were burned at the stake because they sacrificed humans... and that they were given a chance to stop...The Malleus Malificarum (religious book used to determine if someone was a witch, which was used across Europe) defined a witch as evil and typically female. The Malleus Malificarum outlined how to identify a witch, what made a woman more likely to be a witch, how to put a witch to trial (involving extensive torture and confession) and how to punish a witch.
...
It is arguably the most important treatise on prosecuting witches to have come out of the witch hysteria of the Renaissance.
...
Part III (of the book) details the methods for detecting, trying, and sentencing or destroying witches. Torture in the detection of witches is dealt with as a matter-of-course; if the accused witch did not voluntarily confess their guilt, torture was to be applied as incentive to confess. Judges are instructed to mislead the accused if necessary, promising mercy for confession. This section also covers how much belief to place in witnesses' testimonies and the need to eliminate malicious accusations, but also states that public rumor is sufficient to bring a person to trial and that too vigorous a defense is evidence that the defender is bewitched. There are rules on how to prevent the authorities becoming bewitched and the reassurance that, as representatives of God, investigators are shielded from all of the witch's powers.
...
The sexism of the Malleus can’t be denied; the authors' belief that women were inferior, weak, and easily corruptible creatures is emphasized often throughout the writing.
...
The Malleus Maleficarum declares that some things confessed by witches, such as animal transformations, were mere delusions induced by the devil to ensnare them, while other acts, such as flight, causing storms and destroying crops, were real. The book dwells at length on the licentious acts of witches, their ability to create impotence in men and even gives space to the question of whether demons could father children of witches. The writing style is serious and utterly humorless - even the most hard to believe statements are presented as reliable information.
You have assembled some good information there Tempest, but you are actually missing the point. I would agree that anglo-saxons were no more hygenic than the Vikings. Both cultures shared a similar, North European Barbarian ancestry. What I was referring to, was that even in the so-called "Dark Ages" that were the Viking heyday, southern Europeans practiced "modern" concepts of cleanliness, such as daily bathing, that was a vestige of their Greco-Roman heritage.Tempest wrote:Quote from yourself: "the nonsensical false Gods that the REAL Vikings all rejected once they were introduced to Christianity", "disowned their powerless, pagan Gods", etc. These kinds of colorful sentences can be interpreted in more than one way. Though, if that wasn't your intention, my mistake will be my excuse.draconic chronicler wrote:I don't believe I said anywhere in my posts that "Christians were better", or more humane.
I guess, you have missed my point. You said that Vikings were "incredibly violent and bloodthirsty people"; I pointed out that it was a common trait of many nations/kingdoms/clans/you-name-it in those times. Since the people murdered were Christians, it was appropriate to give the example of the Crusades since it was an important part of the context in which the Vikings' actions were judged.draconic chronicler wrote:I am well-aware of the Christian atrocities and that really has nothing to do with the basic discussion.
I could have simply replied:"I don't think Vikings were any worse than any other Europeans at that time" but instead I have opted to provide some clear examples of what those "other Europeans" did and how quickly and how easily medieval people resorted to violence.
I have checked around to see what I could found on Vikings' hygiene. So here it is (with references):draconic chronicler wrote:And you seem to be mistaken about Vikings being "less filthy" than other Europeans. In southern Europe, regular bathing remained a popular concept even after the fall of the Roman Empire for it was part of that region's culture.
(about the Arab encounter, not sure if this is the same guy)Not exactly what I consider to be extremely filthy for the time. Also, archeological evidences have showed that Vikings used reindeer antler to make combs, supporting the idea that Vikings did care about their hair and their appearance, which is closely connected to hygiene. Tweezers and ear ladle were some other common things that have been found (evidences suggesting they washed themselves carefully).Swedish Vikings - Luleä University (Sweden) wrote: The Arabic messenger Ibn Fadlan, who was in Bulgar during the summer of 922, saw the Vikings arrive, and he wrote: "I have never before seen such perfect bodies; they were tall like palm trees, blonde, with a few of them red. They do not wear any jackets or kaftaner, the men instead wear dress which covers one side of the body but leaves one hand free. Every one of them brings with him an Axe, a sword and a knife. They never leave these things. Their swords are broad, grooved, and of French make. From their bellies to their necks they are tattooed in green with trees and other pictures. All of their women have a small box attached over the breast. This can be made of iron, silver, copper or gold. On each box there is a ring to which a small knife is attached. Around their necks they wear necklaces of gold and silver."
The Vikings obviously made an impression on the messenger, but he also writes about their bad hygiene. He continues, "Each morning the girl comes early in the morning with a deep dish of water. She gives this to her master who in turn washes his hands, face and hair. When he is through the girl takes the dish to the man nearest the master. This man repeats the process. And so the dish wanders from man to man until everyone has washed himself in the water."
To Ibn Fadlan's friends this story must have been horrifying, as they were educated Muslims. They would probably never think of washing themselves in anything other than flowing water.
In the same lines:A History of the Vikings - Gwyn Jones wrote: Perhaps the most telling comment comes from the pen of English cleric John of Wallingford, prior of St. Fridswides, who complained bitterly that the Viking Age men of the Danelaw combed their hair, took a bath on Saturday, and changed their woolen garments frequently, and that they performed these un-Christian and heathen acts in an attempt to seduce high-born English women
Gwyn Jones. A History of the Vikings. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1968.Also, someone needs to keep in mind that the Vikings who sailed around the world had a worse hygiene than those who stayed at home (hygiene was generally worse on ships than other places especially hundreds of years ago).Two Late Saxon Combs from the Longmarket Excavations - Ian Riddler wrote: It is reported in the chronicle attributed to John of Wallingford that the Danes, thanks to their habit of combing their hair every day, of bathing every Saturday and regularly changing their clothes, were able to undermine the virtue of married women and even seduce the daughters of nobles to be their mistresses
Ian Riddler. Two Late Saxon Combs from the Longmarket Excavations. Canterbury's Archaeology 1989/1990, The 14th Annual Report of Canterbury Archaeological Trust Ltd.
As on why Vikings were depicted as savage:Gareth Williams wrote: Surviving accounts of Viking activity were almost exclusively written by churchmen. These include monastic chronicles, such as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and similar Frankish and Irish Annals, which outline broadly what happened, at what date. There are also sources of a more directly religious nature, such as the much-quoted letters of Alcuin, and Wulfstan's famous 'Sermon of the Wolf', both of which chose to interpret the Viking raids as God's punishment on the Anglo-Saxons for their sins. Even the chronicles reflect the fact that the Vikings often attacked monasteries for their wealth, which created an obvious bias against them, and the hostile tone of these contemporary accounts has done much to create the popular image of Viking atrocities. However, modern historians have noted that the same sources show Christian rulers behaving equally unpleasantly, but without being condemned on religious grounds.
Gareth Williams, curator of Early Medieval Coins at the British Museum. He specialises in the history of the Viking Age, with particular interests in the nature of royal power, and in the relationship between history and literature.If you have experts in the field of study saying otherwise (and just for the records, I am not even remotely close to be a Vikings historian), then there is certainly a lack of consensus on the subject and I doubt that if experts cannot agree amongst themselves that this debate can be solved on this message board.Anna Ritchie wrote: The first Viking raids were hit-and-run affairs. There was no co-ordination and no long-term plan behind them. Raids were not even a new hazard in a society well-used to warfare on any scale from local skirmishes to great battles. The Vikings' sin was to attack and pillage the holy monasteries, the sacred places of the Christian world. And the leaders of that world were quick to condemn them. One of those leaders whose words have come down to us was Alcuin of York.
Anna Ritchie, archaeologist and a Viking specialist. She has excavated numerous sites, notably Buckquoy, in Orkney. She is author of Viking Scotland, as well as many other books on Scottish archaeology.
So if you have closing remarks about this, feel free to post them, but due to the reasons mentioned in my previous paragraph, it is better to consider this debate as closed and/or unresolvable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Witches are people who got burned at the stake because they were accused of doing magic / worshipping the devil / being possessed / dealing with spirits / heresy / etc... human sacrifice as very little do with this.DragonRider wrote: Witches and Pagans practised human sacrifice to worship their gods. That is why they were burnt at the stake in the olden days. They were given the chance to stop but didn't take it.
...
But to reiterate what I said earlier, witchs sacrificed humans and animals. Even today some are still sacrificing babies.
Yes, Aztec and some other very specific cultures and groups indeed did human sacrifices but this has very little to do with "witchcraft" which is as stated above, the act of doing magic, performing something supernatural or just doing anything considered to be heresy.
And you claim that witches were burned at the stake because they sacrificed humans... and that they were given a chance to stop...The Malleus Malificarum (religious book used to determine if someone was a witch, which was used across Europe) defined a witch as evil and typically female. The Malleus Malificarum outlined how to identify a witch, what made a woman more likely to be a witch, how to put a witch to trial (involving extensive torture and confession) and how to punish a witch.
...
It is arguably the most important treatise on prosecuting witches to have come out of the witch hysteria of the Renaissance.
...
Part III (of the book) details the methods for detecting, trying, and sentencing or destroying witches. Torture in the detection of witches is dealt with as a matter-of-course; if the accused witch did not voluntarily confess their guilt, torture was to be applied as incentive to confess. Judges are instructed to mislead the accused if necessary, promising mercy for confession. This section also covers how much belief to place in witnesses' testimonies and the need to eliminate malicious accusations, but also states that public rumor is sufficient to bring a person to trial and that too vigorous a defense is evidence that the defender is bewitched. There are rules on how to prevent the authorities becoming bewitched and the reassurance that, as representatives of God, investigators are shielded from all of the witch's powers.
...
The sexism of the Malleus can’t be denied; the authors' belief that women were inferior, weak, and easily corruptible creatures is emphasized often throughout the writing.
...
The Malleus Maleficarum declares that some things confessed by witches, such as animal transformations, were mere delusions induced by the devil to ensnare them, while other acts, such as flight, causing storms and destroying crops, were real. The book dwells at length on the licentious acts of witches, their ability to create impotence in men and even gives space to the question of whether demons could father children of witches. The writing style is serious and utterly humorless - even the most hard to believe statements are presented as reliable information.