PDA

View Full Version : Were the Normans Traitors?



Angus
Sunday, September 18th, 2016, 04:53 AM
A rather interesting question to consider. Inspired by the post found here (http://www.normandescendants.org/were-the-normans-traitors/). What are your thoughts / opinions?

Nattevind
Sunday, September 18th, 2016, 06:05 AM
I suppose it depends on the perspective. From a purely Odinist point of view one could argue that it was an act of treason, seeing as they had to discard their pagan cultures of birth to adopt Christianity as part of the deal. Add that to the fact that it was the grandson of Charlemagne, who aggressively wiped out Wotanism in Germany, who was making this bargain as well.

Another perspective, that I was reading in an Armanist book "The Great Yearning", views an aspect of Europe's conversion process as a step forward in the unification of Europeans morso than ever for a longer term greater good. His argument was that at that point it was a bunch of European tribes fighting among themselves and that Christianity became a better (though not perfect, mind you) uniting factor than what was presented in the past. Granted it's not like this author was pure Christian or pure Odinist. From the Armanen perspective, developed by German mystics and practiced in the Third Reich and especially by the SS, there's a harmonious marriage of Odinism and Aryan-Positive-Templar-Crusader-Christianity (which seems to heavily associate the self-sacrificing/resurrected Christ archetype with the Norse deity Tyr).

I have no definitive opinion one way or the other on your question, though I find the subject matter utterly fascinating to read about and discuss. As someone who leans more Odinist, I'm no fan of Charlemagne's merciless savagery toward German pagans but at the same time there's simply no point of hanging onto grudges. I want to focus on the here and now and to advocate the halt of brothers' wars between those of European descent, no matter what specific religion or nationality they identify with. What's done is done, and I have faith that modern Europeans could coexist peacefully in an ethnostate whether they are Odinists, Christians, Armanists, etc.

hodekin
Sunday, September 18th, 2016, 02:32 PM
Speaking as 'another' Odinist, I would say that the Normans, at least those of circa 1066 were no more traitors than anyone else of their age in terms of abandoning their original native religion. They grew up with Christianity and it was all they knew!

Leaving behind the faith of their forefathers happened long before their time and the universal attraction of Christianity suited their quest for power more purposefully than Heathenry ever could.

To my mind, back then, Christianity was primarily a vehicle to power and riches, with the religious aspect of keeping people well and truly in their place coming in as a secondary (but none the less important) position.

Charlemagne and Olaf Tryggvason however I would single out as being worthy of further investigation and condemnation of the treachery of which we speak!

Hodekin

Shadow
Sunday, September 18th, 2016, 07:43 PM
The Vikings settled many lands just like they did in Normandy. The difference seems to be in Normandy they adopted and improved and modernized the war technology of the French and turned it to England where they conquered a whole country, not a small zone.

Catterick
Sunday, September 18th, 2016, 08:01 PM
The Vikings settled many lands just like they did in Normandy. The difference seems to be in Normandy they adopted and improved and modernized the war technology of the French and turned it to England where they conquered a whole country, not a small zone.

Normans were taught cavalry skills by the Bretens who absorbed the local Alans (Bachrach).

hodekin
Monday, September 19th, 2016, 08:10 AM
Normans were taught cavalry skills by the Bretens who absorbed the local Alans (Bachrach).

I have heard this theory also and in addition that 'Arthur (if he really lived) could have been of Alan descent.

Hodekin

Catterick
Monday, September 19th, 2016, 06:51 PM
I have heard this theory also and in addition that 'Arthur (if he really lived) could have been of Alan descent.

Hodekin

Malcor doesn' t stand up as well as Bachrach. But Arthurian lore has origins in the Nart sagas and Firdowsi. Gwinevere comes from even further east: Gunavara is a character of Indian lore (Anderson).

SpearBrave
Tuesday, September 20th, 2016, 03:08 AM
In the link it states



Scandinavians were never part unified group and likely never called themselves Vikings. They were not a unified political or cultural group capable betraying one another.


I think the whole link is false history.

The sagas mention Vikings or going Viking. They had similar language, political structure, style of dress, religion, art and all other things that make them a separate culture of their own. Their ships were unique to them as was their style of government.

This web page tries to paint the Scandinavians as mindless groups of marauders with little or no culture unique to themselves. Though the adds on the website have some nifty trinkets for sale, I'm surprised I did not see a horned helm for sale that would make the web page complete of the stereotypes.;) Who knows perhaps even Ragnar from that TV show even shops there when he is not busy sleeping with Asians or whatever he does on that show. :P

I would not put much stock into it or any questions they might arise from it as to whether Normans were traitors or not.

Angus
Tuesday, September 20th, 2016, 04:12 PM
In the link it states



I think the whole link is false history.

The sagas mention Vikings or going Viking. They had similar language, political structure, style of dress, religion, art and all other things that make them a separate culture of their own. Their ships were unique to them as was their style of government.

This web page tries to paint the Scandinavians as mindless groups of marauders with little or no culture unique to themselves. Though the adds on the website have some nifty trinkets for sale, I'm surprised I did not see a horned helm for sale that would make the web page complete of the stereotypes.;) Who knows perhaps even Ragnar from that TV show even shops there when he is not busy sleeping with Asians or whatever he does on that show. :P

I would not put much stock into it or any questions they might arise from it as to whether Normans were traitors or not.

That's a valid point, SB. I personally interpreted the author's brief discussion on that a bit differently though. The culture of the Scandinavians who would go "viking" was very much the same, sure. Same Gods/Goddesses, folklore, style, architectural and other points you mentioned, but the various tribes wouldn't have been united under the same banner under normal circumstances and on a normal day wouldn't have felt any unity to another region's earl. It's actually quite similar to the case of the clans in Scotland. Same culture and whatnot, but were really anything but a unified system nonetheless nation / ethnic group.

Oh and yes, the author has no academic credentials as far as I can see. So naturally take the post it self with a grain of salt. :D

SpearBrave
Tuesday, September 20th, 2016, 11:58 PM
That's a valid point, SB. I personally interpreted the author's brief discussion on that a bit differently though. The culture of the Scandinavians who would go "viking" was very much the same, sure. Same Gods/Goddesses, folklore, style, architectural and other points you mentioned, but the various tribes wouldn't have been united under the same banner under normal circumstances and on a normal day wouldn't have felt any unity to another region's earl. It's actually quite similar to the case of the clans in Scotland. Same culture and whatnot, but were really anything but a unified system nonetheless nation / ethnic group.

Oh and yes, the author has no academic credentials as far as I can see. So naturally take the post it self with a grain of salt. :D

What about the great Heathen Army that invaded England?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heathen_Army

That would take some type of unity and later in 1066 that was a sizable force under a king. Yes, I know that is the supposed end of the so called "Viking age " , but it does show that they had united under a common cause to achieve some goals. It would be interesting to know actually how much unity they had from village to village. Most likely family ties and trading contacts would be the best form of unity.