PDA

View Full Version : The Vikings or The Knights



RoadScholar
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 12:12 AM
What group do you think is more interesting, cooler, or just overall better? The northern raiders of central europe commonly called vikings or the suppsodily romantic and poetic knights of the same area that followed later?

Loki
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 12:19 AM
What group do you think is more interesting, cooler, or just overall better? The northern raiders of central europe commonly called vikings or the suppsodily romantic and poetic knights of the same area that followed later?

I admire both groups, since they were all my ancestors. :)

But if I had to choose, I would pick the pagan Vikings, since I do not approve of the Christianization of my people that happened under Frankish lead.

Johnny Reb
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 12:40 AM
Yes, but the Teutonic Knights expanded German territory East, whearas the Scandanavian Vikings were held at bay by the Wends. ;)

Loki
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 12:45 AM
Yes, but the Teutonic Knights expanded German territory East, whearas the Scandanavian Vikings were held at bay by the Wends. ;)

True, but you forgot about Rurik and his group, who founded the Kievan/Russian Principalities. :P

RoadScholar
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 12:47 AM
Well, I wasn't specifially refering to the teutonics, or any other orders related to knighthood or anything (such as the templars), but real knights in countries which had vikings before.

But yeah, knights are my favourite. It's a very mysterious and more interesting history to me then vikings. Sure viking culture may be fun to learn about, but the aristorcratic and noble knights seen a lot cooler. And because much of my family were kngihts long ago. I guess also because I don't think I have any ancestry in Sacndanavia (in fact I think the vikings woudl have taken my people as slaves I believe)

Ever seen "Fire and Swords?" It's a Polish movie but I would assume you could find it amoung all european places now.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 06:56 AM
Viking times sounds like a hard life with a lot of hard work, short life, and pain broken up by fighting, rape, pillage and plunder. OK.

The Romantic Knights of Grail times is a dream but I would very much like to live that dream somehow without the drawbacks of the Viking times and without the ignorance and religious component.

Anton Asen
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 12:08 PM
Vikings are great:fviking:... and they have left their imprint on World History... from Scandinavia... to Rus...and Arabia... the Mediterranean.... Sicily.. Normandia....Britain.. Iceland... Greenland....Vinland.... But the Knights :knightare cool too... Chivalry..tales...crusades... both have their charming sides.. cannot decide... :)

Angelcynn Beorn
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 05:48 PM
Vikings, simply because they had a lot more freedom to go where they pleased and when. Wheras knights were tied to the land by Feudalism, by and large. :)

Necronomicom
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 05:57 PM
Medieval Knights were the coolest people ever! :) :ffence:

:knight
http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/d/d1/Arthur3487.jpg
:fknight:

RoadScholar
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 06:17 PM
Vikings, simply because they had a lot more freedom to go where they pleased and when. Wheras knights were tied to the land by Feudalism, by and large. :)

Well, they still had to spend most of their time at home. Since it would take lots of people and lots of time to save up enough food and equipment for a raid. The Knights got to travel to distant lands for long periods of time, and woo women while at home.

If you want to get tehcnical ;)

kinvolk
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 09:13 PM
Knights if the romanticized versions we learn about today seem pretty cool, But the vikings were FEARED for thier war abilities and savagry. The lords prayer in europe for a thousand years ended with;" And Lord, save us from the Vikings."

Vestmannr
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 11:02 PM
I vote Knights, though I admire the transitional period from Viking Age to Age of Chivalry the most. I tend to think of Vikings as primarily merchants who did a little farming and settling on the side, and ever so rarely raided or went to war (that part I feel is a bit exaggerated by popular belief.)

Telperion
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 11:22 PM
The question seems like a subtle way of asking whether we prefer sailing or horseback riding...

If forced to choose (and it's a difficult choice), I would pick the Vikings, chiefly because I admire their audicity in sailing as far west as the New World at a time when many Europeans thought the world was flat, and that those who sailed into the west would fall off its edge. But I'm still quite fond of Knights.

Helter Skelter
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 06:06 AM
The question seems like a subtle way of asking whether we prefer sailing or horseback riding...
No, I think its more than that, I think someones opinion would be decided by the fact that someone is chivalrious or not.

The vikings raided villages and monastaries for personal gains whereas a knight would fight for king and Christianity. Vikings would kill monks, enslave women and kill children, and a knight would launch a crusade to the "holyland" to fight for someone he has never seen, to me it seems like a person would have to be awfully sure of himself.

Don't get me wrong I am not making an attack against vikings, I respect them and all that they did. I just think to be a knight was a highly respected thing.
And the kinghts seemed so much more interesting.

But if you take most of the armor and the horse away from the knight I believe it would be a one-legged ass kicking contest if you pitted them against each other.:axe I hope this doesn't start another crusade:argue

BTW this arguement has a lot of holes in it but it's to late and I'm to tired to patch it up.

cosmocreator
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 06:40 AM
I agree that they were two very different mentalities. Personally, I think the Vikings had a more natural existence and in that respect I would have preferred to be a Viking. On the other hand, the Knight belong to (and felt part of) something bigger than himself. The knights and King were like medieval National Socialism.

Milesian
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 10:43 AM
I too vote for the knights, for mostly the reasons people have already made.
They were confident in fighting for a higher cause and the Laws of Chivalry are noble and honourable.

The Vikings certainly were brave as well and excellent sailors, but I can't totally forgive them for the pillaging and destruction they brought to Ireland :). Many ancient and priceless works of art, literature and knowledge were lost to Viking raids. However, some Irish artificacts have turned up in Scandinavia. As one author quipped -
"The Vikings preserved a lot of objects by a technique known as "stealing"" :D
Unfortunately that tended mostly to be objects made of gold or precious jewels. Documents and books tended to be burned.

As for knights - The Red Branch Knights take the biscuit ;)

Julius
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 11:53 AM
IMHO, most stories about either knights or pagan "Vikings" are exaggerated and wrong.

And since the "Vikings" became Christian knights it's not a simple distinction. For example, the majority of the runes stones over here were in fact raised by Christians. And while Vikings are portrayed as people who get drunk all the time, the truth is that Scandinavia didn't even have anything resembling what we call alcohol until it was imported by Christians.

Esias Tegnér's poem about Frithiof illustrates a more sane Christian interpretation and admiration of the true virtues of the North-men. [ Learn more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/vikings/revival_01.shtml ]

Phill
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 12:46 PM
And since the "Vikings" became Christian knights it's not a simple distinction. For example, the majority of the runes stones over here were in fact raised by Christians. And while Vikings are portrayed as people who get drunk all the time, the truth is that Scandinavia didn't even have anything resembling what we call alcohol until it was imported by Christians.[/b][/size]

Even Mead...?

This really confuses me... because doesn't this mean that a bunch of stuff has been modified? I mean... stuff like Beowulf, and the Poetic Eddas.

Milesian
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 01:36 PM
Yeah. Mead (a drink made from fermented honey) was actually found in most Celtic countries well before Christianity.
The Roman writers not only speak of the Gauls having men who seemed to be in a perpetually intoxicated state and their love of drinking, but they also spoke of the Germanic tribes making a drink similar to wine but which was made from grain and cereals rather than from grapes (ie Beer).

No doubt, missionaries from Britain and Ireland would have brought mead with them, but I'm sure the Norse were enjoying a tipple long before that :)

I tried mead when I visited Lindisfarne Abbey in NE England, it's rather good ;)

Gladstone
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 02:50 PM
What group do you think is more interesting, cooler, or just overall better? The northern raiders of central europe commonly called vikings or the suppsodily romantic and poetic knights of the same area that followed later?

I tend to like both but have to say the Knights are indeed quite interesting and have a coolness factor about them as well.


French and English forces fight at the Battle of Auray (1364).
http://www.bnf.fr/enluminures/images/jpeg/i3_0036.jpg

johnnywalker
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 03:11 PM
What group do you think is more interesting, cooler, or just overall better? The northern raiders of central europe commonly called vikings or the suppsodily romantic and poetic knights of the same area that followed later?
none..I regard them both as barbarian..

Marlboro
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 04:53 PM
I too vote for the knights, for mostly the reasons people have already made.
They were confident in fighting for a higher cause and the Laws of Chivalry are noble and honourable.

The Vikings certainly were brave as well and excellent sailors, but I can't totally forgive them for the pillaging and destruction they brought to Ireland :). Many ancient and priceless works of art, literature and knowledge were lost to Viking raids. However, some Irish artificacts have turned up in Scandinavia. As one author quipped -
"The Vikings preserved a lot of objects by a technique known as "stealing"" :D
Unfortunately that tended mostly to be objects made of gold or precious jewels. Documents and books tended to be burned.

As for knights - The Red Branch Knights take the biscuit ;)
Yes they pillaged, but didnt they found Dublin? Limerick? and a whole bunch of other towns?

Milesian
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 06:00 PM
Yes they pillaged, but didnt they found Dublin? Limerick? and a whole bunch of other towns?

Yes, southern softies. Grrr..... :D :jk

Actually, they were probably the first to build modern-type towns.
Before that, the Gaels lived in a much more spread out, rural setting with lands being the territories of clans and families. Tuaths tended to be ruled by a Tuath-Ri (a petty ruler) who would answer to someone above him and all the way back to the ruler of their people, or at times even the Ard-Ri (High King).

It can certainly be argued that the Vikings were handy with a hammer and brought some benefits, but it would be wrong to over-look their destruction and pillaging which contempory accounts tell us certainly happened.
Luckily, Brian Boru put them in their place and they became honest Irish citizens within a few centuries of their arrival :)

Telperion
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 06:23 PM
No, I think its more than that, I think someones opinion would be decided by the fact that someone is chivalrious or not
That might be true. I tend to be more impressed by individual deeds of glory than anything else. Perhaps I read too many Conan the Barbarian stories when I was younger.

Vestmannr
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 08:43 PM
Well, to be fair: Beowulf and all the other Anglo-Saxon writings likely do not have any origin as 'pagan' Norse/Germanic tales. The plot of Beowulf is lifted entirely from an earlier Irish story (also recorded by Christians), and laid over with a veneer of Scandinavian history and names. The whole point of the way the Beowulf story is presented, is as a Christic tale: its a form of catechism to the Christian faith. The Wanderer/Seafarer are metaphorical poems about the Christian monastic life.

Learn Old English.. its a beautiful language. We can bring it back :D

Angelcynn Beorn
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 08:56 PM
Well, they still had to spend most of their time at home. Since it would take lots of people and lots of time to save up enough food and equipment for a raid. The Knights got to travel to distant lands for long periods of time, and woo women while at home.

If you want to get tehcnical ;)

Well from what i remember of the sagas ive read, the vikings seemed to go "a-viking" every summer, and spend the winter at home fiddling with the females theyd captured and worrying the sheep. Wheras the knights spent years crusading in alien lands with no women or comforts in sight.

So let me see... going on holiday every summer to hotter countries, seeing the sights, enjoying the fine wine and food, killing everybody that looked at you funny and coming home richer than you left. OR sitting in a desert in the middle east surrounded by hook-nosed arab girls, questionable food, under strict vows of chastisty and poverty and wondering whether the "friendly" locals had poisoned the water or not.

Hmmm.... Nope, still gonna stick with my original choice and go for the vikings! :fviking: :viking

Vestmannr
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 08:59 PM
Hmm... when he said Knights, I sure didnt think Crusaders (most of who were of low blood, and not knights.)

I think of Knights, I think of the guys who stayed home and didnt go traipsing off to foreign lands.

Angelcynn Beorn
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 09:01 PM
Well, to be fair: Beowulf and all the other Anglo-Saxon writings likely do not have any origin as 'pagan' Norse/Germanic tales. The plot of Beowulf is lifted entirely from an earlier Irish story (also recorded by Christians), and laid over with a veneer of Scandinavian history and names. The whole point of the way the Beowulf story is presented, is as a Christic tale: its a form of catechism to the Christian faith. The Wanderer/Seafarer are metaphorical poems about the Christian monastic life.

Learn Old English.. its a beautiful language. We can bring it back :D

Thats rather a large claim, and one ive not seen others make. Surely if there was evidence that "all the...Anglo-Saxon writings" were written by Celts that would be well documented by now. Besides which, having read both the wanderer and the seafarer many years ago they didnt immediately strike me as being about monastic life at all. Since they dont mention monasteries either, the claim that they are about monastic life is an opinion at best.

Sword Brethren
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 09:02 PM
Numerous Germanic Knight orders fought eastwards to expand their realms... The Knights of the Teutonic Order and the Brethren of the Sword just to name two of them... The Germanic Crusading knight represented the spreading of Christianity to the heathen peoples of the east (primarily Lithuania). The Vikings were basically pagan scum who raped, pillaged, looted, and murdered their way across europe... However the vikings did one good thing. They forced Europeans to band together for defense and governments began to form as a result... Thus Europe was beginning to come out of the Dark Ages...

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 09:04 PM
Neither. I prefer the Druzhyna of Kieven Rus! :D

http://www.xenophongi.org/rushistory/medievalarmor/nevsky.jpg

RoadScholar
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 09:05 PM
Well from what i remember of the sagas ive read, the vikings seemed to go "a-viking" every summer, and spend the winter at home fiddling with the females theyd captured and worrying the sheep. Wheras the knights spent years crusading in alien lands with no women or comforts in sight.

Well, again, to get technical, perhaps the richer vikings who has ample slaves and sons to stay at home and take care of food production.

From what I have read, although people did not typically starve in viking areas, it is doubtful that there would be a significant surplus of food. This would be true especially for Scandinavian vikings considering the supply of good farmland there. To get enough food and materials saved up for let's say twenty to fifty men to spend a couple of months abroad would have required a population of hundreds if not thousands. Unless they planned to stop over and steal food along the way. Modern researchers agree: the typical viking did not go "a viking" very often at all.

cosmocreator
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 09:16 PM
The Vikings were basically pagan scum who raped, pillaged, looted, and murdered their way across europe...


They didn't do enough of that. They should have carried out their terror on the whole world unrelentlessly.

Marlboro
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 10:11 PM
Numerous Germanic Knight orders fought eastwards to expand their realms... The Knights of the Teutonic Order and the Brethren of the Sword just to name two of them... The Germanic Crusading knight represented the spreading of Christianity to the heathen peoples of the east (primarily Lithuania). The Vikings were basically pagan scum who raped, pillaged, looted, and murdered their way across europe... However the vikings did one good thing. They forced Europeans to band together for defense and governments began to form as a result... Thus Europe was beginning to come out of the Dark Ages...
How about normandy? Kiev? Novogorod? Russia? Could a uncivilized bakcwards band of robbers and rapists set up states like that? Discover America? Establish trade routes from North america to bagdad? Maybe you should do some reading before you post next time. Viking or knight? I think I stick with viking...more freedom..more girls..more gold..less praying...

Mistress Klaus
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 10:36 PM
I love all crazy men armed with swords... :D

Vestmannr
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 11:03 PM
Note, I did not say all the Anglo-Saxon writings were Celtic... I said they were Christian. I'll get you references for the origin of the Beowulf story if you want, just take a trip back to the Uni library to look it up (its been ten years since I dealt with that issue specifically). As for the poems such as the Seafarer, Dr. Jonathan Wooding is my authority in that case. I would suggest his recent small volume on the Vikings as an introduction/corrective who think the Vikings were about horned helmets and burning villages.

Either way, the English Varangians are my heroes ... and their predecessors who faced the Normans at Hastings ;)

Vestmannr
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 11:15 PM
Also, for Sword Brethren:

"The Vikings were basically pagan scum who raped, pillaged, looted, and murdered their way across europe..."

I'll blame your education on this one, but you should know the Vikings were not entirely 'pagan' (for those who were not Christian, Heathen is the far better term in any case .. and whom they worshipped differed with tribe and individual.) Our understanding of Vikings is far more sophisticated now than the view you have repeated above. Again, I would suggest the above volume by the world's authority on European trade routes in the Middle Ages: The Vikings by Dr. Jonathan Wooding, 1998, Rizzoli.
Basically, the Vikings were an economic powerhouse, whose children became the actual guardians of Western Civilization. Altogether, pagan Norse with human sacrifice were no less moral than the DeMedicis (some of whom were Popes.)

" However the vikings did one good thing. They forced Europeans to band together for defense and governments began to form as a result... Thus Europe was beginning to come out of the Dark Ages..."

First off, there is no mainstream historian or archaeologist that believes the 'Dark Ages' fantasy. There was no Dark Ages, get over it. As for Vikings forcing Europeans to band together.. yes, but you left out one fact. It was the Vikings (and their Germanic kin) organizing those Europeans into Kingdoms: from Sicily, to Normandy, to Viking York, Kievan Rus, many German cities, etc. Remember, the Holy Roman Empire was founded by Germans as well... on the rotting bones of Old Rome.

Phill
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 12:16 AM
Now, as for my actual answer to the thread's question...

Well, I know that were we back in the Middle Ages, and my father were a noble, that my chances of being just a plain Knight would be rather high. Being the second born son of the family I know that I'd probably be the one parading around searching for adventure, trying to rescue the damsels in distress, and taking part of tournaments in order to try to gain fame and fortune. My older would probably be the one to inherit most of the family wealth.
If I wanted, I could become a more pious man, fight in the name of God and Christianity ( :P ) and maybe take part of some Holy War Crusade.

In a Norse society could be a lot a lot better of inheriting health. If I wanted to, I could get most of the wealth... Even without killing my brother. :P
But, even if my father wasn't among the social elite I still would probably own some land and be a Karl. With that said, were I successful enough I could probably attend several raids (invasions?) during my life time, and not just set out for mainly trading. If i was lucky enough to gain more land and have social status powers from my inheritance, I might be some sort of Hersir or Jarl. Then I could hold feasts for all those around, and plan my own traveling excursions. Sure, I would have to deal with the added responsibilities of being an authority, which is unsettling to know I have that much control over how some peoples' lives can go, but I feel I would make the community happy so I would be ok with it.

I like Medieval age and Knights, I think it's a very interesting point in history and I have always been interested in such things since I was just a child. The Vikings I've been interested for almost as long, and Nordic blood runs strongly through my veins.

I choose Vikings. I think that I'd feel more in place. Besides, I don't really care for Horses, and I'm not really one for wearing lot's of armor. :) That, and I make a very poor Christian. :D

Anton Asen
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 12:26 AM
and just the look of the Vikings is so cool....

johnnywalker
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 12:31 AM
I hate Vikings..dirty people...

Julius
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 05:04 PM
Even Mead...?
Yes, since mead hardly contain alcohol.

Julius
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 05:06 PM
I hate Vikings..dirty people...
I hate stupid people who believe in unproven rumours.

Telperion
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 05:58 PM
I hate stupid people who believe in unproven rumours.
Well said.

Sword Brethren
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 08:52 PM
How about normandy? Kiev? Novogorod? Russia? Could a uncivilized bakcwards band of robbers and rapists set up states like that? Discover America? Establish trade routes from North america to bagdad? Maybe you should do some reading before you post next time. Viking or knight? I think I stick with viking...more freedom..more girls..more gold..less praying...

I know they founded Normandy, they were given it to try to satisfy their lust for conquests, it obviously didn't work well. They were also given the DaneLaw in England.

And I know they even invaded as far as Constantinople, they invaded Sicily, etc. They did get quite far... I am not debating their achievements. I am debating that they were parasitic scum who lived at the expense of other whites.

They were basically in my opinion, little better than Jews. But the jew won't strike you with a axe, he'll strike at your bank account.

Telperion
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 09:22 PM
I am debating that they were parasitic scum who lived at the expense of other whites.

They were basically in my opinion, little better than Jews.
A vile slander for which you should feel ashamed. :burn

Sword Brethren
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 09:25 PM
A vile slander for which you should feel ashamed. :burn
Perhaps, but I said it is my opinion, any people who make their living at the expense of their racial kinsmen, they are the ones who should have been ashamed.

Telperion
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 09:45 PM
Perhaps, but I said it is my opinion, any people who make their living at the expense of their racial kinsmen, they are the ones who should have been ashamed.If by 'make their living at the expense of', you mean invade the countries of their racial kinsmen to take their resources for themselves, then here is a brief list of a few other European peoples who are also "parasitic scum...little better than Jews" by your logic:

- The Ancient Romans (after all, they invaded half the continent solely to strip it of its resources for their own benefit; 'civilizing' their subject peoples was a secondary matter.)

- The English (their Hundred Years War of conquest and pillage against France, their invasion of Ireland and enserfment of the Irish people, etc.)

- The Germans (who in WWII tried to conquer large parts of Europe precisely for the purpose of taking their resources for Germany's benefit, after all that's what 'lebensraum' was basically about).

- The Russians (stripped E. Germany of its industrial resources wholesale after the war and sent factory machines etc. back to Russia by rail)

Fair is fair. It seems to me that if you're going to apply the standard that you have, you should reach the same conclusions about the peoples on the list above, and probably many others as well. If fratricidal warfare is parasitic, then all of these peoples were 'parasites'.

Marlboro
Wednesday, April 21st, 2004, 09:46 PM
They were basically in my opinion, little better than Jews.
You dont know anything about the vikings... They did a 100 times more good for the white race than bad..and if you cared to open a book once in a while you would learn that yourself.

Phill
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 02:17 AM
Yes, since mead hardly contain alcohol.

Upon looking at the bottle of mead that's in my fridge, i saw that it contained 11% alcohol.

I looked upon all the wine bottles in my household, and calculated the average to not even add up to 11%. (However, one bottle of Sherry had an alcohol content of 17%. The lowest was 6.5%)

I looked upon a bottle of Smirroff Ice... it had 5% alcohol.

I tried looking at the beer, Miller High Life and Milwaukee's, but apparently i'm too stupid to find the number on both the can and the box they came in. However, if i remember right i know that wine, generally, is more potent than beer. (Isn't Smirroff supposed to be something like twice as strong as beer? I recall a friend saying that, but i'm not sure.) If someone knows the number, or at least some number range which beer generally is in, it would be nice to know. :D

So either we're drinking hardcore Mead, or your's is diluted... But either way, this is Mead, and it's among the 'strongest' in the house apart from that scary looking bottle of the 80 proof whiskey.

Sword Brethren
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 04:54 AM
If by 'make their living at the expense of', you mean invade the countries of their racial kinsmen to take their resources for themselves, then here is a brief list of a few other European peoples who are also "parasitic scum...little better than Jews" by your logic:

- The Ancient Romans (after all, they invaded half the continent solely to strip it of its resources for their own benefit; 'civilizing' their subject peoples was a secondary matter.)

- The English (their Hundred Years War of conquest and pillage against France, their invasion of Ireland and enserfment of the Irish people, etc.)

- The Germans (who in WWII tried to conquer large parts of Europe precisely for the purpose of taking their resources for Germany's benefit, after all that's what 'lebensraum' was basically about).

- The Russians (stripped E. Germany of its industrial resources wholesale after the war and sent factory machines etc. back to Russia by rail)

Fair is fair. It seems to me that if you're going to apply the standard that you have, you should reach the same conclusions about the peoples on the list above, and probably many others as well. If fratricidal warfare is parasitic, then all of these peoples were 'parasites'.
And yes, that is the main thing that disgusts me about our race (Whites that is)... We all too often fight each other when there is nobody else to fight. And I fear that if we are ever victorious against the non-whites, we'll quickly go back to fighting ourselves over something such as religion or petty land disputes... And about your citing USSR and Nazi Germany, well I liked neither, so you won't see me defending their barbaric actions. You won't see me defending the English invasion of Ireland either. Nor should I defend the Roman invasion of much of Europe, however this could be said to be the only time where civilization actually endured, and conditions of the people improved... Nobody is going to tell me the people raided and looted by the vikings were better off. Nor shall anybody likely attempt to say that the ukranians who suffered under Stalin were better off for it.
White people have a habit of killing their own, a habit that unless checked will likely prove fatal.

Sword Brethren
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 04:56 AM
You dont know anything about the vikings... They did a 100 times more good for the white race than bad..and if you cared to open a book once in a while you would learn that yourself.

You just don't care for my opinion, I know what the vikings did, they did found some cities in England etc... Most books today will tell you negroes are equal to whites and white racialists are evil? Should we listen to those books... I have 2+ book cases full of books primarily on war and politics. So don't call me ignorant just because you disagree with my opinion. That is what anti-whites at school say "You're ignorant". No, I am well learned about the world, I just have opinions that may be controversial.

Marlboro
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 06:00 AM
You just don't care for my opinion, I know what the vikings did, they did found some cities in England etc... Most books today will tell you negroes are equal to whites and white racialists are evil? Should we listen to those books... I have 2+ book cases full of books primarily on war and politics. So don't call me ignorant just because you disagree with my opinion. That is what anti-whites at school say "You're ignorant". No, I am well learned about the world, I just have opinions that may be controversial.
Are you a hippie or something? Pacifist? All whites countries that ever fought another white country are scum? White on white wars has given us the military edge we today have over all the other races..if we stopped fighting amongst ourself a 1000 year ago, like you dream of, by 1300 AD we would be military weak, and first invaded by the mongols from the east, and then by the ottomans from the south. Thats my opinion.

Sword Brethren
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 06:05 AM
Are you a hippie or something? Pacifist? All whites countries that ever fought another white country are scum? White on white wars has given us the military edge we today have over all the other races..if we stopped fighting amongst ourself a 1000 year ago, like you dream of, by 1300 AD we would be military weak, and first invaded by the mongols from the east, and then by the ottomans from the south. Thats my opinion.
Well I think we should spend our valuable soldiers and valuable resources fighting off non-whites. Rather than killing our own... But if you wish to see whites fight each other, that poses a question. Will you be the first to go off to war and kill your white brethren?

Sword Brethren
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 06:07 AM
Are you a hippie or something? Pacifist? All whites countries that ever fought another white country are scum? White on white wars has given us the military edge we today have over all the other races..if we stopped fighting amongst ourself a 1000 year ago, like you dream of, by 1300 AD we would be military weak, and first invaded by the mongols from the east, and then by the ottomans from the south. Thats my opinion.
Read up on the 30 years war. 1618-1648. 1/4-1/2 the population of Germany died as a result of the war... How is that for your "keeping the military edge".

There is no point in having an army, if you have no citizens left to defend.

Marlboro
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 06:20 AM
I dont think Norway will ever be in a war against the rest of scandinavia, germany, holland or england any time soon, but if those white brethren was fighting for a black/jewish influenced government i would. Gladly.

Sword Brethren
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 06:23 AM
I dont think Norway will ever be in a war against the rest of scandinavia, germany, holland or england any time soon, but if those white brethren was fighting for a black/jewish influenced government i would. Gladly.
Of course, I agree. Communists / Zog supporters can be white. But don't let that stop you from waging war against them... White Racists are your comrades first and foremost. Non-Racist whites should be considered as possible converts to racism, but they are not yet your comrades.

Marlboro
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 06:26 AM
Read up on the 30 years war. 1618-1648. 1/4-1/2 the population of Germany died as a result of the war... How is that for your "keeping the military edge".

There is no point in having an army, if you have no citizens left to defend.
So those people fighting for their beliefs, dying for the countries are scum? Your calling our ancestors scum. Thats very disrespectful. Look where we are today because of them. I call them Heroes.

Sword Brethren
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 06:30 AM
So those people fighting for their beliefs, dying for the countries are scum? Your calling our ancestors scum. Thats very disrespectful. Look where we are today because of them. I call them Heroes.

Yes the Glorious heroes from France and other nations who helped kill 1/2 the German population during the Thirty Years War... How did our ancestors ever survive without them...

Julius
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004, 05:44 PM
Upon looking at the bottle of mead that's in my fridge, i saw that it contained 11% alcohol.
Oh, you have the Viking mjöd preserved in your fridge. It must have become a bit avslaget.

Phill
Friday, April 23rd, 2004, 12:27 PM
Oh, you have the Viking mjöd preserved in your fridge. It must have become a bit avslaget.

Errr... translate? I get the gist, but i want to be 100% sure what you're saying.

Julius
Friday, April 23rd, 2004, 01:33 PM
Errr... translate? I get the gist, but i want to be 100% sure what you're saying. What you call mead is not what the Vikings drank.

It was a weak mead with a low alcohol level similar to what we call Svagdricka, which has an alcohol level about equal or lower to our lightest beer (0,8-2%). An army of great Viking men could not possibly get constantly drunk on anything like it.

Vestmannr
Friday, April 23rd, 2004, 08:47 PM
I think I know what you mean. The bottled mead we buy is a 'wine mead', clarified, high in alcohol, etc. When I was young, we made a mead in drums that looked more like ale, but was more like real root beer or ginger bear, alcoholic like Oklahoma beer (3 point or less).

Übersoldat
Sunday, April 25th, 2004, 04:21 PM
I admire both groups, but my accents goes to the Knight type of warrior since my descent from this group is authentic and unquestionable.