Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Were the Vikings EVER good guys?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by jllb0221 (U3587794) on Friday, 8th September 2006
Just wondering if the Vikings were ever considered good guys? Did they ever trade with the coastal populations peacefully or did they just appear out of nowhere in a vicious fury? There are theories that they were driven to attack due to famine, lack of arable land in their own countries, civil/societal unrest, etc. I can't imagine they just jumped in their boats, blindly went to sea & hoped to bump into some land somewhere worth pillaging.
So were there Viking traders or diplomats that went out before the scourge started? -
Message 2
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Friday, 8th September 2006
Various efforts have been made to rob the Scandinavians of their hard-earned reputation as barbaric raiders
, notably Sawyer's 'Age of the Vikings' (1971, London). Sawyer was famously described as portraying the Vikings as merely 'long-haired tourists who occasionally roughed up the natives'. Most academics acknowledge that there were plenty of examples of peaceful interaction with Scandinavians without denying the ferocity & seriousness of their atacks. -
Message 3
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Friday, 8th September 2006
My Swedish wife would question whether they were ever really bad guys. Its all a matter of perspective, really.
-
Message 4
Posted by Gracchi (U3350920) on Saturday, 9th September 2006
The russ, vikings founded a few russian citys,aswell as many other including,Dublin,
also they were amazing ship builder and The Vikings had a legal system. In fact, the English word "law" comes from a Viking word.
On a darker side there trading with slaves may have given us the term term slavic people from there contacts with Constantinople as they came down the rivers of europe, aslo there have been found buddist relics found in nordic countries. -
Message 5
Posted by jonsparta (U3871420) on Saturday, 9th September 2006
i would say they were both. traders and raiders. this is sumed up in there conquest of England, only haulted by Alfred the Great. there most darkess thing was the trade in slaves. although not a new thing, there is evidence of there conections throughout the known world, they sold slaves not just in Europe but to prize ones to the courts of Muslim leaders. the white skin and blond hair of young women was muched prized by out Eastern neighbours...
-
Message 6
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 9th September 2006
Hi jllb
Somebody once, very wisely, observed that 'Viking' was a job description not an ethnic group. I think it is important to distinguish Vikings, as a minority group, from the majority who we might call 'Scandinavians of the Viking Era'. Unquestionably those that left eventually changed the political geography of N. Europe and their ship-building technology resulted in a period of maritime exploration unequalled in the Early Medieval Age. Plenty stayed at home and minded their farms.
Evidently how you feel about the burning of a Northumbrian coastal abbey depends whether you are proposing to write an Icelandic saga, or an entry in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle. Most Vikings were more concerned with profit and silver, than with glory. It is arguable that more wealth reached Scandinavia from trade with the East, than piracy in the West; and if you didn't like them you could always pay them to go away. The success of Viking armies was by no means inevitable. They could, and were, defeated if vigorously opposed.
Circumstances dictated that the modern states of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland owe a great deal to the impact of the Scandinavians. Both directly, in the Ages of Alfred and Cnut, and indirectly via Normandy. Here in Yorkshire the words: fell, beck, dale and ghyll are still in regular use. We recall the Scandinavians every time we open our mouths. York itself, as a great trading centre, owes everything to their trading ability.
IMO,judged by the standard of the way Europeans behaved in Africa, the Vikings weren't so bad.
TP -
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 9th September 2006
To correct message 4, Slavs' prominence in history certainly predates the 'arrival' of Vickings. The term Slav (a latin one) was given by Late Romans early Byzantines (however you call the Eastern Empire of the late 6th century). As first Slavic people descendent into the south passing the Danube, they were doing so mostly peacefully and thus they were let by Byzantines to establish. Usually as these by tradition had been rural populations they were living in camps outside the cities, usually working in farming and husbandry, as a very low paid workforce - hence, they practically took the role that slaves had in the earlier Empire (the recent establishement of christianism meant that slave-trade became illigal but it can be argued that even earlier with the 212 law of Caracalla giving citizenship to all free citizens within the Empire, the number of slaves had already been reduced. For that reason the Byzantines called these camps "sklaviniai" (not sure of latin spelling), i.e. the camps of slaves - thus with time from Sklavos it became Slavos. More, one may not ignore that the name Serb (used then for all proto-Serbocroacians are of the first groups to have crossed the Danube) is nothing else than the latin word for "service-man" . Unlucky Serbocroacians were thus both called names like Slavs and Serbs but then of course with time these names practically lost their meaning and these people are actually proud of their names.
Now Vickings being the worst guys in the medieval times or the most ruthless or the most wild? I do not think so. Certainly they were of the most famous but then we cannot forget that a large part of their fame was based on small scale excursions of 30-40 men against unarmed or half-armed villages across the large European rivers in east and west. Certainly there were worse than them. The Mongols for example? Ok, leave the Mongols aside - certainly the worse guys in Europe in the 700-1100 A.D. era (time of the Vickings) were the Bulgarians, it is just that Bulgarians lived just next to and within the Byzantine Empire (the most rich of its times) and had no much love for the sea to travel to other places to raid the rest of Europe in order to increase their fame. A mere description of their raids, that were done with armies of 10,000s, 20,000s and 30,000s soldiers - i.e. proper ordered armies but still armies of raiders of the style of Vickings really makes your hair stand still... it is characteristic the description that they hated so much their southern neighbours that they were repeatedly seen to take babies by the leg and hit them or throw them on a wall or even to decapitate babies and then playing football with the head... and these are not exagerrations... imagine that when Basilius punished the 10,000 prisoner Bulgarian raiders after the battle of Kleidi (around 1012 A.D. if I remember well?) with blinding most Byzantines (especially from the areas that suffered) were furious for the good (!) treatment Bulgarian prisoners received, some others talked how gentle and human was the Emperor not taking any revenge.
It is also noteworthy that Bulgarians had actually fought as allies side by side with Russian Vickings (those that soon later became the Varrangian guard in Constantinople) on their late 10th century campaign against Byzantines. Vickings were said to had been terrified when they learnt the dromon ships were approaching since that meant the possibility of receiving those strange ligquids that burst into fire (they remembered stories of their grandfathers who did a first attempt) and thus they retreated quickly while Bulgarians (more accustomed to Byzantine tactics) remained resisting for a bit longer considering the fact they had their women also with them many of which would also fight or suicide to avoid being captured - not that this means Bulgarians were more brave or something (it is just an isolated case). -
Message 8
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 9th September 2006
A better way of categorising Scandinavian migrations between the 8th and 11th centuries is to class them as a triple-phased movement. The first phase, the expropriation of assets through force, was simply the extension of an already established raiding system perfected by coastal Scandinavians within their own societies. The second phase concentrated on extracting even more revenue from the territories that most often yielded only short-term returns earlier. Trade, colonisation and diplomatic ties therefore normally followed closely behind the initial raiders. The third phase, of political consolidation, developed naturally as a means of securing the by now considerable investment in these foreign territories.
This whole process could take many generations to complete (but had different durations in any case depending on the situation of the territories affected), was initiated in different places at different times, sometimes after several abortive attempts, and was played out against a background of shifting political power structures back in the Scandinavian heartland of the 'settlers', which sometimes left them effectively isolated in their new lands and with more in common with the natives than the society that had spawned them.
To try to label all these people simply as Vikings is a bit of a misnomer, and then to try to ascertain whether they were 'good' or 'bad' is simply a waste of time. -
Message 9
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 9th September 2006
The earlier comment about the English word slave is quite correct. It entered the language courtesy of Danish/Norwegian where the word was synonymous both with the concept of a slave as we now understand it, and the particular race in Eastern Europe who were unfortunate enough to provide much of the 'raw material' by which many Scandinavian slave traders became rich.
-
Message 10
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 9th September 2006
The term Slav was first used by Byzantines during the 6th century (centuries earlier than the 'arrival' of Vickings into the european scenery) thus has absolutely nothing to do with whatever practices of Vickings.
Moreover, Vickings only traded slaves on occasion and not in any systematic and formal way like for example did Arabs who established a slave trade in Africa that lasted centuries - nearly a millenium. Actually slave trade in Eastern Europe was mainly carried out by Touranic invading tribes (the enemies of Vickings) who provided the Arabs and later the Ottomans and prospered out of that and actually the last to do so where the Krimean Touranic tribes who continued the slave trade till early 19th century though by those times it was less in quantity but best in quality (permit me the irony as by those times it was mainly the occassional stealing of a beautiful girl to be sold for the Ottoman palace and not the mass production delivery of batches of slaves to work in the mines or something). The money they had made was really big time and at times they had been a powerful state - however their past was so terrible that certainly these Krimean Tatars fully deserved all what they suffered in the 19th century by Russians and nobody cried for them!
Back to our issue, Vickings were occasionaly slave traders while even their presence in the Eastern Europe did not last for long enough to permit them any while on the other hand in the west they did not manage to establish a formal trading route for slaves. After all most groups of Vickings often had not very good relations with muslims while most often (apart two Russian campaigns and one Normand) they kept really good relations with the Eastern Empire to which a large part of their trade was targeted, an Empire that did not work with slaves like the Arab one. -
Message 11
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 9th September 2006
Now if Vickings were ever good guys? It depends how you see that; for example, for Byzantines they had been in many cases, especially those serving in the Varangian guard. They were effective troops, they were loyal to death, they fully respected the local people when on campaign (unlike the earlier Goths and the later Francs and the crusaders) and they were extremely popular even among common people apart those in the army that felt a bit jealous when the Emperor would give more to them than the rest as a recognition for their services. It is noteworthy that on one case, the Emperor was murdered and a usurper was on the throne. The Varangians had kept themselves out of that and for one week avoided public appearences then when they saw that things became quiet and that the usurper (cannot remember the name, it was of those strange ones in the 1O50 period) was accepted by most as a real Emperor they showed up to his services thus declaring that "its your problem who rules, we just serve the Empire, not any particular person, and we are simply paid for this".
Another example of how loyal they were, I remember I had read that at a time, a Varangian was sent in Bagdat member of a diplomatic team. When the muslim leader spoke in a bad manner for the Roman Emperor the Vicking went... berserk and took out his axe to decapitate him but a guard killed him just in time! Well...such attitudes of them made them even more popular. -
Message 12
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 9th September 2006
The statement regarding the etymology of the word 'slave' applied to its use in English. Before the Vikings the English used the Anglo-Saxon 'theow' or 'thræl' to indicate the concept. The Scandinavian invaders brought with them to England the term 'slav' and this came into the vernacular in place of the older terms (one of which survives in the word 'enthrall'). The etymology of the Scandinavian term 'slav' is related to the Slavic people, as I said. You are trying to contradict me with my own assertion, which is quite funny.
E_Nik, in your haste to bring the point of origin of all things back to Greece, and your even greater haste in arguing only from Greek-related references, you are (yet again) doing yourself a disservice. Citing the apocryphal behaviour of an emissary Norseman in the service of the Byzantine court as an indication of a national characteristic merely emphasises my previous point - any attempt to sum up the diverse characters, actions, motives and political and ethnic backgrounds of the people commonly lumped together as 'Vikings' under a 'good' or 'bad' banner is essentially stupid. -
Message 13
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 10th September 2006
... unless you consider the Byzantines as the bad guys and Mongols, Vandals, Huns, Goths, crusaders and Bulgarians as your idols ... well in case these prevailed earlier than after 1000 years that would had been a real plight for the global level of civilisation and the only hope would be in East Asia.
Ok I am not American to name good and bad guys and rogue states (unimaginable!), I laught at these terms but just for the fun of it I took it from there.
Well, permit me to consider the Byzantines with all their internal strife as the most civilised Empire ever on earth (least militarist and least violent and least imperialistic in comparison to others - everyone that came in contact with it got progressed... do you find it accidental)... and in that sense those Vickings who served it, yes were with the good guys.
You are not specialist in languages but then I expected you knew that Greeks (byzantines) came in contact with Slavs in the late 6th century some 2 centuries before the first known Vicking set his foot a latitude lower than Scandinavia and there are full descriptions of them and how they established their camps "sklaviniai' within the empire. Sorry but the word "sklavos" predates any Vicking interference. Sklavos soon became Slavos and it is that word that Vickings took much later... unless you want us to turn
I am just being accurate here nothing else, what else would be my motive (I really do not care if a lot of names, titles, and other linguistic features date back to ancient or medieval Greeks, it is not my fault, my interest is keeping some accuracy and not saying whatever). -
Message 14
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 10th September 2006
I never said that the Vikings originated the word E_Nik, just that they introduced it to English. As far as I was ever aware the term 'sclavus' entered Middle Latin at a time when the unfortunate Slavs were being hunted and sold as 'slaves' by various elements in and around the Byzantine wasps nest (most civilised Empire on earth? What does that mean Nik? You really do ruin your posts with such chauvinistic crap). An essential part of that slave trade involved selling them on to middlemen throughout Europe for re-sale, and it was our pals the Vikings who lost no time in displaying a flair for just such entrepreneurial initiative - long before they showed territorial ambitions abroad they were up to their norse elbows in dodgy foreign 'trade', especially of the 'sclavus' kind!
-
Message 15
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Monday, 11th September 2006
The Irish monks, and later Anglo-Saxon monks, who give us some of the first records of 'Viking' raids were certainly not likely to see any 'good guy' element in those who had done them so much damage. It could be argued that in Ireland in particular they destroyed a 'civilisation'. Were it not for Alfred, they could have done the same in 'England'. They largely did so in Northumbria.
By the mid 10th century we have a different situation. We have Irish chieftains/kings willing to use Scandinavians as mercenaries. We have in York an 'English' Archbishop (Wulfstan) far more willing to have a Norseman, Eirik Bloodaxe, as 'King of Northumbria', than have the 'hated Suthangli' (i.e. the West Saxon monarchy) rule in the North.
In Normandy, too, after Hrolfr was granted the Duchy in around the 960s (IIRC), the descendants of his Norwegians presumably were generally accepted a rulers by the populace, though no doubt a 'thorn in the flesh' of Frankish kings in Paris, even before the terrible thing they did to the Anglo-Saxon monarchy a hundred years or so later.
-
Message 16
Posted by jonsparta (U3871420) on Monday, 11th September 2006
on the subject of slaves, i thought that the city of Dublin was a centre of Viking slave trade. i believed that it was quite a large industry....
-
Message 17
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 11th September 2006
Not a large industry in comparison to others that the norsemen controlled in Dublin, but lucrative enough to merit a bit of pro-active attention on the part of the Norman ascendancy in the 12th century in an effort to eradicate it. To call it a Viking trade however is a bit of a misnomer. The bulk of the 'slaves' were prisoners of war captured often by Irish chiefs and then 'sold on' to Dublin entrepreneurs for sale abroad. Since the bulk of those captured had a ransom value only within Ireland the 'trade' often existed of little more than selling the captives back to their chiefs or commanders. They fetched more money that way. The trade flourished most when Dublin and York were firmly under Viking control and the established trade routes could be utilised. When these routes came under Anglo-Saxon and later Norman control, it is worth noting that this merely diminished the trafficking of slaves, it did not eliminate it.
-
Message 18
Posted by jonsparta (U3871420) on Monday, 11th September 2006
nordmann,
cheers for that...the vikings were a interesting bunch. both traders and raiders but in the end i think alot were looking for land and plunder. as with most nomdic tribes, once they take and hold land they often give up the old way of life... -
Message 19
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Monday, 11th September 2006
I would put the Norwegian/Icelandic Vikings who travelled West and found, then settled Greenland, and then discovered and almost settled 'Vinland' in any list of Viking good guys: Eirik the Red, Leif Eirikson, Bjarni Herjolfsson, etc.
-
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 11th September 2006
Nordman, my view of the Byzantine Empire is not based on chauvinism, since this was the Eastern Roman Empire, a multinational Empire that was only based on the Greek element rather than being single-handendly Greek.
I only said that comparing it with the other 6 Empires, Egyptian, Assyrian, Persian, Chinese, Roman and English certainly Byzantine Empire proved to be much more civilised than them in most fields:
- officially no Slaves
- No Imperialistic Wars
- It was the main place in the western and middle eastern world that produced most of innovation (naming the Arabs does not do for me as we have not seen any Byzantines searching for Arab scientists but we saw for centuries the opposite)
- first state-run universities
- first state-run public hospotals
- first state-run social security
etc. etc. etc.
How on earth do you think that Renaissance happened? Because of Arabs? But Western Europeans had not conquered Arabs, just one two cities that could not keep for long in which anyway risided some dirty crusaders - who cannot be considered as part of the civilised world. However, strangely enough Europeans took off since 1204 A.D. so that must say something to us and explain how on earth from point zero (or below zero) suddenly you had 100s of thinkers in the european courts.
The above are not views of me only, specialists like Ranciman have written (and even him, he ignored a lot of things having spent much time like others in the religious dress of that Empire that has been over-emphasised mainly by negativists (a strange group of catholics, muslims, anti-christians, atheists,jewish, writers of the enlightment, right-wing capitalists, right wing liberals, socialists, communists, anarchists etc.).
The above is not to say that "we are the best you are bad and mean": I am the first before you that says that the only civilisation that counts is that of the last 500 years 0) of course because it is most close to us! 1) because it was the most rapidly developed one 2) because it managed to go far more than others 3) because it explained more things of this universe than other cultures... and this civilisation is not the direct product of Greek or Romans or Babylonians but of all those that these laughed at back then. Got it?
However, permit me to say that the Byzantine Empire had been the most civilised judging from their achievements on a group of fields. -
Message 21
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 11th September 2006
western europeans not conquering Arabs = Spanish conquered them but it was Italians that mainly started the Renaissance. Weird isn't it?
-
Message 22
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 12th September 2006
Not weird at all. The renaissance had nothing whatsoever to do with 'conquering' arab centres and everything to do with the development of academic possibilities that had hitherto not existed in the European cultures that gave birth to a new found interest in ancient knowledge. The term itself is a bit of a stupidity since it implies an explosion of new thought and ideas (in retrospect from the vantage point of the 19th century such was how it must have seemed and the term was coined at that time), when in fact people like Petrarch and Boccaccio etc etc were themselves the product of a long development in academia that had seen a gradual shift in emphasis from church dominated doctrine to genuine scientific principles. This shift also brought about a new market - the sourcing and acquisition of ancient texts - which in turn opened academic eyes to the fact that not only had the arab world been a good custodian of many of these sources, but it had in the interim even used them as starting points in its own development of scientific theory and knowledge, much of which was then gratefully incorporated into the European academic curricula.
Your insistent obfuscation of the term slave to exclude the serf within its definition (along with other extravagant claims relating to state-run amenities, a concept that had been developed to a high degree in other cultures prior to and coinciding with the Byzantine Empire) shows simply that you are adamant that we all should stand in awe of all things Hellenic (in this case the tattered shreds of a once great Roman Empire that happened to be based on Greek soil and which had devoted so much of its energies and resources in simply surviving for so long that it had all but ceased to be anything but a parody of imperial ambition), when in fact a closer statement to the truth would be that the terms "Byzantian" and "Greek" as metaphors for needless bureaucracy and inept ineffectiveness did not come about by accident. While you are an undeniably staunch supporter for the land of your roots, and that land did indeed once make a contribution to history far in excess of its apparent potential (or that its subsequent stature would now suggest), I am afraid that your devotion to this cause has blinded you to alternative interpretations of history in which innovation is not the preserve of the Greeks, excellence abounds in other political models and spheres, and the course of human development has plodded along quite nicely long before and long after the Greeks managed to acquire their brief 'moment in the sun'.
Now, back to the Vikings ... -
Message 23
Posted by jonsparta (U3871420) on Tuesday, 12th September 2006
nordmann,
please dont, im enjoying this thread even more! great post.. -
Message 24
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 12th September 2006
Incidentally, the Byzantine Greek word "sklavos/sklabos" was not a new coining but was taken from the Old Slavic word Sloveninu meaning "a Slav", so it's not even a Greek word originally...
Oh, and Nik - the English spelling of the word is VIKING - there is no letter c in the word.
And for the umpteenth time, we are not saying that the Vikings invented the word "slave/slav" and introduced it into English, but rather it was the Vikings' trade in slaves with the Byzantines that caused the word to be borrowed first by the Vikings and then by the English. Not a difficult concept to grasp surely, no matter how obtuse one may be.
Going back to the original question, I think Nordmann pretty well much hits the nail on the head in message 8 about the Vikings. -
Message 25
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 12th September 2006
I think there is some communication breakdown. I have never said that the word Slave derived from Greek. I have only said that it got established by Byzantines and that it certainly did not have any to do with the Vickings or whatever else.
I think I have explained well above why from all known Empires, the Byzantine on the overall sectors had been the most civilised Empire, now if you do not get the point of what is civilised and what is not then fair enough. I have repeatedly spoken about other cultures and their contribution and also the lost contribution of lost cultures like that of Carthagenians for example. But then when I hear whatever I enjoy intervening and correcting: Examples? Roman civilisation is so popular to the west as it took it out of its obscurity but in real terms was more backwards than hellenistic and it kept some level only due to the presence of the hellenistic culture that continued more strong in the Byzantine world, Romans alone were mediocre production in scientific and cultural terms and even their main achievement, the Roman Law was not even theirs (having been started by Justinian and completed in the 8th to 10th centuries!).
I have also explained well that my point is not to defend 'any roots' but then from the other hand it is not my fault that I have such roots and I write in a history channel and it is not my fault that things are like that. If people have a distorted view of history then I enjoy pulling them to the other side to see things a bit differently.
Sorry but apart the last 500 years, in the previous 3000 years high culture, science and in general civilisation had been mainly the Chinese, the Indians, the Persians, the Arabs and the Greeks' hobby! Thus in Europe that leaves only Greeks... since Europe prevailed for various reasons and not China, that increased the importance of the greek civilisation even more but that would not be the case if China had moved around the world earlier.
Due to many reasons such as the total destruction that crusaders caused in the eastern mediterranean, and of course the copy-paste (copyrights were unknown in these times) and of course above all the 80% of political perspectives that for one reason or another are against the style (actually the external garment or what is thought of it) of the Byzantine Empire, this Empire is only briefly dismissed by most - let it be 1000 years of strenght, being at the center of the cyclone, facing the worst of enemies of any kind by employing such a small army (the least militarist of all) and producing at the same time that level of civilisation then one can say that it is nothing particular...ok lets find another example then.
What is history? When people are not even correct on who was the man who discovered the other half of the landmass on the Earth? They are wondering how a tailor from Italy became such a knowledgeable person at times when printing did not exist and books were really expensive... well... is it true that he called as uncle a French naval leader called De Colon (suspected of actually being of the Byzantine royal family, cousin to Byzantine Emperor Palaiologus himself), the and that he talked in a foreign language with his brother and that he did not even use Italian to talk to Italian bankers, and that he signed with XMY and that in letters to Spanish noblemen wrote "Do not ask where I come from, I let people saying this and that and keep my roots for myself". If it is not then ok be it Italian then. Let me though say that the likes of Copernicus where nothing but mere copyists. Permit me also to say that the Renaissance may well be a bit ficticius as a term but then as much as the other big-time ficticius, the Middle Ages=Dark Ages (dark for whom? For western Europe? Why, it was somehow enlightened before? South, eastern Europe proved to be as enlightened as ever even despite the strange dual dark/good-influence of christianism). That Renaissance was not exactly the result of a long orientation of Europeans to culture and civilisation (the usual myth of Charlemagne, the illiterate emperor that loved arts), Italians only heard of Plato in the 14th century when their few literrate men heard of Plinthon talking about philosophy and it shook their world finding out that there is more than just Bible and Aristotle - these few literrate men (most of them actually not Italians but of Greek ancestry, though names are not remembered nowadays since they changed them due to the catholic-orthodox hatred to be accepted) were paid by local italian noblemen, initially not because Italians were on their road to culture but because of pure imitation of the Byzantines, they just wanted to become as 'cool' as theirs and really I find it really cool that modern civilisation started as a fashion and not exactly out of curiosity and pure interest to progress in all sciences. Had westerners been curious they would had earlier done it. Still it is that civilisation that proved to be the most rapidly evolving as one thing brought the other (primarily the discovery of America that shook the world, placing it in the trip of exploring since the world was not anymore 'the usual' but a place that hid more things).
See, how things can be quite different? Its is a point of view you will say only that myself I do not dismiss other cultures - I am mostly interested in elaborating on how civilisation is developed and what roads it takes. Civilisation is not a one-way and things were not necessarily meant to happen that way. Views like mine are far from being subjective, it is not me that raises Roman Empire (though it is more than known that it caused some overall backwardness) as the absolute nor me that would say that Islam was a religion that despite initial development it was bound at some point to keep the muslims backward (I have never heard such crap but it is many of you that keep reproducing such) - there is no 'karma' to the fate of cultures. -
Message 26
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 12th September 2006
And exactly what point are you making?
-
Message 27
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 12th September 2006
Ok, let's see if I got the jist of your last post myself then ...
1. The word Slav comes from a people who called themselves something that sounds like Slav and has been used by them and others to indicate a people called Slav and also the fact that they were often enslaved. But it's a Byzantine word. Ok, got it!
Byzantium was not the only great civilization but the others were all pretty mediocre in comparison. Ok, got it. Thanks.
You don't really want to keep banging on about how great Greece was but unfortunately you are Greek and you can't help it. Ok, got that too.
The Chinese, the Indians, the Persians, the Arabs and the Greeks invented civilization as a hobby. But it was only the Greeks who were any good at it. Ok, I'm getting your drift now.
Those that knock the Byzantine Empire are cut-and-paste crusaders and the like. The Byzantine Empire spent a thousand years shrinking so it must have been great despite what these scissor wielding religious warmongerers think. Ok, who can argue with that?
History is all about the fact that everything is really Greek. Even the Italians who started the renaissance were Greeks. The renaissance was really Greek. It was an attempt by Greeks to impersonate the great Byzantine cool empire, which was Greek. Even the French (some of whom were really Greek) understood this. And so the Greeks discovered America (was this Greek also?).
How am I doing?
Views differing from the above are subjective. Only the interpretation of history as a totally Greek thing is objective. Civilization is a round-about thing, and it is Greek.
Despite the communication breakdown you mentioned earlier Nik, I think I'm beginning to see the light!
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.