The SHOCKING reason why the VIKING raids began
Bjorn Andreas Bull-Hansen | 28 June 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StJ0BcKwzYI
Before I hear the video, I think I have heard it before, was it about the felling of Donar's oak or about the Frankish reprisal in Saxony? Both persecution of Widukind (who I think ended up Catholic and even a saint) and toppling of Irminsul?
2:18 Sure, along with Norway, Prussia, Estonians, Curonians and Livonians, Saxons were one of the peoples who were Christianised by force, in the Norwegian case from the king, otherwise from the outside.
Finland is a more complex case, one story repeated itself:
- part of the Finns were Swedish subjects (possession or in one case protectorate) and Christian
- other part were Pagan and attacked the Christians
- Swedish Christians took more land
But in a sense, the Saxons are not alltogether unlike the Finnish example, since Charlemagne's decision in 772 came after 100 years of Frankish Christians being harrassed by the still Pagan Saxons.
back then Christianity was forced upon people. 3:10 Christianity was not seen as a force of good. It was seen as a force of subjugation and control. 3:22
And Germanic (Saxon or Norse) Paganism was somehow NOT a force of subjugation and control?
And subjugation and control was not seen as, up to a point (like becoming a slave was not good for the man becoming a slave) as good?
When you state that subjugation of peoples under a common ruler and his rules and control over the subjugated people was NOT a good thing, like automatically not good, not just because it was on occasion abused and bad for that reason on that occasion, you are basically appealing to a certain fringe movement within Christianity, which in English are variously called Radical Reformation and Evangelicals and in Nordic countries Frikyrkliga.
A Christian back then (as a Catholic now) saw and sees a Catholic state as an ideal, given that Jesus told His disciples to make disciples of all nations (i e collectively, including state and government), not "people from all nations" as the Watchtower Sect mistranslate. Note, in the absence of a Catholic state, we still have a duty to convert individuals, see Mark, but in Matthew, the scope is clearly nations.
But the Pagan was not an individualist. He could of course decide to worship Thor or Odhinn or Frey personally, like Hravnkel Freysgode, but he could not neglect an actual vé or the sacrifices that were supposed to take place there if under his responsibility. And they did not tolerate the presence of another public worship either. If you check on the conversion of Riga, the Livonians were actually killing missionaries to stop the mission.
In the case of Odhinn, the cult was very much about subjugation and control, and Ynglings near a "lund" un Uppsala (now Older Uppsala, inside the Uppsala municipality) would every nine years sacrifice nine men there, and they would also make sure to expand. You know why the Ynglings came to Norway, via Wermland? One Yngling was just a bit too expansive, his name was Ingjald.
5:49 I'm not sure how much North Africa was involved in slaves caught by Vikings ... I took it, Christians who were enslaved would land in Scandinavia and become ancestral to later Scandinavians in part. Don't Norwegian and Danish redheads go back to Irish slaves?
If you are right, where is the documentation?
Christians in mainland Europe obviously documented Vikings had taken people. Vikings didn't document. So, is the documentation North African and only recently accessed?
6:19 Thank you for the admission.
So, in 900, a Viking raid on England, Ireland or France was not about revenge for Irminsul any more?
But your story about Irminsul or the Massacre of Verden provoking the Viking age, what about earlier Saxon raids?
Die Sachsen, die in dem Gebiet zwischen Nordsee und Harz bzw. Rhein und Eider siedelten, waren schon den Merowingern teilweise tributpflichtig gewesen, aber nie deren Untertanen. Auch hielten sie an germanischen Traditionen fest, wozu nicht nur die Religion und ein eher loser Stammesverband gehörten, sondern auch regelmäßige Raubzüge auf fränkisches Gebiet. Ob Karl zunächst nur diese Raubzüge unterbinden wollte oder von Anfang an eine Unterwerfung, Christianisierung und Eingliederung der Sachsen in das Fränkische Reich geplant hatte, ist historisch nicht gesichert.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachsenkriege_Karls_des_Großen
Probably, after a century of raids, the latter.
8:07 Keeping land under one lord, subjugation and control, through primogeniture?
Vikings were often younger sons who couldn't get their own land. Later on, people in that position would often become clergy.
8:30 Sure, but eventually Christians were better at fighting back than Amerindians.
9:52 Yes, indeed. Canute as he's called in French and English won England. For a time, later Danish rule was ousted by another Viking who won, or rather his descendant. And by 1066, Danes around Rouen were so mixed with Gallo-Romans that the Normans weren't exactly Danes and also didn't speak Old Norse.
But Canute and Rollo had a thing in common with Clovis. They found out Christians aren't necessarily racists, they can accept a foreign ruler to some extent, but they are confessionalists. A Christian population (which we are unfortunately running out of) is lots easier to rule if the king is Christian too.
10:21 I would add two factors.
1) Norse rulers became Christians and as such were somewhat less prone to plunder fellow Christians.
2) Christianity gave another outlet for younger sons. Clergy instead of going into Viking.
11:14 Isn't it still (even if you might avoid the term) Sankt Hans in Norway?
Thank you, best wishes for Sts Peter and Paul ...
No comments:
Post a Comment