PDA

View Full Version : Viking Sexual Slavery and International Slave Trade



Ahnenerbe
Sunday, September 17th, 2017, 07:58 AM
The same people who these days take Vikings as an example for virility are usually thinking that "slavery is ungermanic" and so is "violence against women" and exterminating whole tribes/ethnicities - that stuff is supposed to be "dishonorable" and so on.

I argue here that theese concepts are not necessarily Germanic in nature but are a modern thing, coming from the domestication of Western Germanics through thorough Christianization and outbreeding (https://forums.skadi.info/showthread.php?t=153312), which has transformed the bulk of Western populations into domesticated, obedient commoners (https://forums.skadi.info/showpost.php?p=1202905&postcount=20) (instead of predators). It has no equivalent in pre-Christian societies.



“This was a slave economy,” said Neil Price, an archaeologist at Sweden’s Uppsala University who spoke at a recent meeting that brought together archaeologists who study slavery and colonization. “Slavery has received hardly any attention in the past 30 years, but now we have opportunities using archaeological tools to change this.”


Scandinavian slavery still echoes in the English language today. The expression “to be held in thrall,” meaning to be under someone’s power, traces back to the Old Norse term for a slave: thrall.


Slavery in the region long predates the Vikings. There is evidence of vast economic disparity as early as the first century A.D., with some people living with animals in barns while others live nearby in large, prosperous homes.

The Annals of Ulster record “a great booty of women” taken in a raid near Dublin in 821 A.D., while the same account contends that 3,000 people were captured in a single attack a century later.


Ibn Hawqal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Hawqal), an Arab geographer, described a Viking slave trade in 977 A.D. that extended across the Mediterranean from Spain to Egypt. Others recorded that slaves from northern Europe were funneled from Scandinavia through Russia to Byzantium and Baghdad.


[...] Some scholars believe that the Vikings were a polygamous society that made it hard for non-elites to find brides. That may have driven the raids and ambitious exploration voyages for which Vikings are best known. Some genetic studies, for example, suggest that a majority of Icelandic women are related to Scottish and Irish ancestors who likely were raid booty.


[...] at a Swedish site called Sanda, researchers in the 1990s found a great hall surrounded by small houses. Some Swedish archaeologists now believe this could have been a Viking plantation with slaves as the labor force.

William Fitzhugh, an archaeologist at the Smithsonian Institution, added that “female slaves were concubines, cooks, and domestic workers.” Male thralls likely were involved in cutting trees, building ships, and rowing those vessels for their Viking masters.



The harsh treatment accorded slaves is amply recorded both in the archaeological and historical record. On the Isle of Man in the Irish Sea, a wealthy male Viking’s tomb includes the remains of a young female killed by a ferocious blow to the top of her head and mixed in with the ashes of cremated animals. Other such examples can be found across northern Europe.

Life for thralls was clearly harsh. A 14th-century poem—the original likely dates from the end of the Viking era—gives an idea of how Vikings saw their slaves. Among their names were Bastard, Sluggard, Stumpy, Stinker, and Lout.

Ahmad Ibn Fadlan, an Arab lawyer and diplomat from Baghdad who encountered the men of Scandinavia in his travels, wrote that Vikings treated their female chattel as sex slaves. If a slave died, he added, “they leave him there as food for the dogs and the birds.”

Source: National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/151228-vikings-slaves-thralls-norse-scandinavia-archaeology/)



The Norse also took German, Baltic, Slavic and Latin slaves. The 10th-century Persian traveller Ibn Rustah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_ibn_Rustah) described how Swedish Vikings, the Varangians or Rus, terrorized and enslaved the Slavs taken in their raids along the Volga River.

Slaves were often sold south, to Byzantine or Muslim buyers, via paths such as the Volga trade route. Ahmad ibn Fadlan of Baghdad provides an account of the other end of this trade route, namely of Volga Vikings selling Slavic Slaves to middle-eastern merchants.[44] Finland proved another source for Viking slave raids.[45] Slaves from Finland or Baltic states were traded as far as central Asia. Source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe#Vikings)

[Note: there was also the Amber Trade Route (https://forums.skadi.info/showpost.php?p=1202664&postcount=3) where slaves were sold in Venice, where was an international slave market].



In Byzantium and the Abbasid Caliphate there was great demand for eunuchs – a new study suggests this demand was being met by the Vikings raiding monasteries in northwestern Europe.


Earlier studies have indicated that during the Early Middle Ages one of the main trade goods going from Western Europe to Byzantium and the Middle East was human slaves.

The Byzantine and Abbasid empires were the destinations for these castrated slaves – where there was great demand for them. With the creation of the caliph’s harem in Baghdad, there was “a massive need for trustworthy guards, a need that was filled by eunuchs.” These men would be servants to the women children in the harem, even acting as teachers.


“In the end,” Valante writes, “the expanding uses for slaves during the time of the early Abbasids, including the need for large numbers of enslaved eunuchs, drove much of the slave trade around the Mediterranean basin. The Viking raids, which began barely a generation after the Abbasid dynasty seized the Caliphate, met part of that need.”



The team also will tackle the disturbing issue of sexual slavery. There are hints of polygyny in Germanic cultures from this time, though researchers aren’t sure of its extent in Viking society or in the Vendel era.

But if it were prevalent, Price speculates, poorer men would have been eager to seek wives outside Scandinavia. Researchers hope to understand more by pulling together DNA and other data to determine relations and origins among Viking dead.

The argument that Vikings set out to capture women gets tantalizing support from recent genetic studies of living people in Iceland, which has not experienced a significant migration since the Vikings settled it more than a thousand years ago.

About three-quarters of male Icelandic settlers hailed from what is today Norway, although well over half of the women were from the British Isles, according to genetic studies of today’s Icelanders. That suggests that Viking men partnered with British women on a massive scale.

Source: Science Mag (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/vikings-may-have-first-taken-seas-find-women-slaves)



Another destination for slaves exported from Ireland was the east. The comparatively sophisticated Islamic and Byzantine empires produced many luxury goods that were sought after by Viking traders, and there is archaeological evidence for imports from these regions, including Byzantine silk and Arabic coins, in Ireland.

These high-status goods were exchanged for ‘unmanufactured’ items from northern Europe, including slaves and furs.


The Arabic geographer Ibn Fadlan gives a very dark account of the way the Vikings treated their female slaves, which included human sacrifice. There is some evidence for this in an insular context.

At Ballateare on the Isle of Man a wealthy Viking was buried with many slaves, including a young female who had been killed by a savage blow across the top of her skull. Her remains lay towards the top of the warrior’s burial mound, mixed in with the cremated remains of his animals.

An eleventh-century poem, Moriuht, purports to tell the tale of an Irish poet and his family who were captured by Vikings. The poem is an outrageous attack by a rival, who delights in claims that Moriuht was urinated upon and gang-raped by his captors.



Slaves were seen as “cattle”, or as advanced domestic animals, who typically lived in the darkest end of the longhouse with the other domestic animals. If slaves did not behave properly then they were beaten.

An owner could punish his slaves as much as he wanted. The slaves’ bodies were also available for sexual exploitation.

This is mentioned in the description from 922 by the Arabic diplomat, Ibn Fadlan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_ibn_Fadlan), about his encounter with a group of Vikings on the Volga. He describes how the two attractive girls, who were to be sold, were sexually abused by their owners, whilst others watched.



The Church was against Christians being forced into slavery by “the heathen” Vikings. One account describes how a monk was so shocked at seeing Christian slaves for sale in Hedeby in 870, that he sold all his possessions and personally bought the slaves their freedom.


So let's check - we have:

- Globalization / international trade
- Capitalism
- Sexual Slavery
- Massive inter-ethnic race mixing


, all around the VIIth to Xth century... All this has nothing to do with White nationalist fantasies and modern "disgruntled middle class" weaklings types who oppose all these things in the name of "traditionalism"... Nothing to do with modern "white knights who don't rape"... All that is modern, domesticated, christianized "small Whites" stuff.

The truth is that the true spiritual descendants of the Viking captains are the guys today who are trading stuff in Wall Street and plundering whole economies in the Third World. These guys are predators, not prey.

The "traditionalists" on the other hand are just modern day peasants who feel weak are are finding every excuse that the weak should be protected, whether they are "far right" or "far left".

I mean, the domestication of Whites who do not rape anymore might be a great thing in a way, but it's a Christian thing! Not a pagan one. And it's not a specifically White character or Germanic one. It is the pure result of:

1. Christianization and
2. Outbreeding (https://forums.skadi.info/showthread.php?t=153312) (which made people care about the world at large and not only their own tribe)


Conclusion: If you have higher morals, great. But then thank Jesus Christ for it. It has nothing to do with Germanicness or "paganism"...



ay0XmxYUNWI

Mööv
Sunday, September 17th, 2017, 10:01 AM
Saxons too are documented to have slavery. And a caste system.

Theunissen
Sunday, September 17th, 2017, 11:17 AM
Saxons too are documented to have slavery. And a caste system.

I recall that Tacitus wrote about it and then there is the Rigthula.

Social layers are described as Edelinge, Frilinge, leaseholder and Servs. Or nobles, freemen and unfree. No idea what percentage of the population was what. I can imagine that the nobility was less than 5% with the free about half and the unfree about the other half of the total population.

So social status played a role, it doesn't seem to be as rigid as the caste system in India though.

Wyrd
Sunday, September 17th, 2017, 02:35 PM
I'm not sure what the point is here. We are all aware that the Vikings weren't perfect and also had some violent past. Is it an implication that these things (globalization, sexual slavery, slave trade and interethnic race mixing) should be considered inherently Germanic? I don't think that anyone is saying that we should live 100% as the Vikings did, that would be anachronism.

Slave trade, etc. weren't a specifically Viking or Germanic phenomenon. It was a sign of the times, especially ancient and medieval, most populations had slaves or some sort of hierarchy system. We had much darker and violent pasts, including during Christian eras. If you think being opposed to violence is a typically Christian thing, how do you explain that Christians tortured and burnt people at the stake for their own "salvation"? Christianity had a long run as one of the world's most violent religion. Spreading itself through Crusades, how do you think that worked? Do you think they kicked on people's doors and asked them if they wanted to hear about the Lord Jesus Christ? :) Nearly all Christian leaders before the late 17th century recognised slavery as consistent with Christian theology. In fact, Christianity is a much bigger slave religion than Germanic Paganism, since its teachings are that all of us are slaves/servants to its god. Christianity also has its holy war, like Islam, in the name of conversion to Christianity and it supports corporal punishment for children and women. Or what about the KKK, who are also some Christian sect...

Mööv
Sunday, September 17th, 2017, 04:45 PM
@ Theunissen

The third were those belonging to the conquered tribes. They weren't slaves but had to pay tribute and had less rights or something like that. Intermarriage was also forbidden.

Fjolnir
Sunday, September 17th, 2017, 09:17 PM
Google "Moral Universalism". This concepet is deeply ingrained in people's minds by christiany and is polluting their view of the Germanic Ancestors. I'll let myself quote one of my favourite books on the topic:

"[...]Regardless of what justification someone might use to defend a system of morality, virtually everyone equates the word "morality" with a code of conduct based on altruism and universal compassion (even if the details may differ between various systems).

The Vikings would have thought of that as a stinking pile of dragon excrement.

The only connection between religion and morality in the Norse world was that they were both part of the same cultural system. Morality didn't derive from religion, and religion didn't derive from morality[...]

Furthermore, whether or not the Vikings even had a standard of morality is debatable, and depends on how you choose to define the word "morality". If morality is defined broadly and loosely as simply a standard of conduct that one is expected to follow in one's day-to-day life - the definition we'll be using here is this chapter - the the Vikings did have their own morality. Such a definition is wide enough to include what the German philospher Friedrich Nietzsche famously called "morality of mores" - that is, a system of morality that consists of nothing more than social norms. That was the only kind of morality the Vikings had.

As you can probably guess from the preceding chapter, the Vikings weren't big on the idea of "free will", which we today tend to see as the basis for moral action. The idea of a fixed fate greatly constrained the range of moral choices, such that will was only ever "free" in a partial and provisional sense, and those choices that were left were essentially just matters of meeting that fate in a particular way."

(Sorry for any mistakes, I've written it by hand, don't have an e-book on hand.)

Also, you should familiarize yourself with Heimdall's (or Odin's in disguise, as some interpret it) three sons and three social castes present in a natural Germanic Society.

Ķtreksjóš
Sunday, September 17th, 2017, 11:01 PM
Ah yes, the old, the Vikings did it, so should we.

There is a saying, "Tradition is not to preserve the ashes but to pass on the flame".

Our duty as Germanics is to continue those traditions which advantage us and our folk and discontinue those that are detrimental to our survival. Globalisation, slavery and race-mixing do not serve to further Germanic preservation, no matter how "virile" you think they are. We've seen what happened in the US with the introduction of slavery, for example.

Germanic men who are drooling after "foreign booty" are frankly disgusting. I don't understand the allure, there is nothing prettier and more attractive than a proud Germanic woman. So let us leave concepts like globalism, moral universalism, equality, pacifism and turning the other cheek to non-Germanics but let's also be selective about which legacy we continue. In the end, it will be irrelevant whether our folk perishes because of ethnic and race-mixing with sexual slaves or because of bleeding heart racial egalitarianism. We need to establish some values which lead to the rebirth of our folk.

Sigurd
Monday, September 18th, 2017, 02:30 AM
If our ancestors did something, it doesn't necessarily mean it was good, even if one generally reveres the era involved, simply because it happened in said era. It may have been a mirror of the times or given necessities: Knights in full-plate-armour in the medieval likely regularly shat into their armour for the lack of a better option during a march towards a battlefield, doesn't mean renaissance fairs shouldn't offer a public toilet. ;)

This applies to the Viking Age as much as it applies to any other area they might look positively upon, whether that be the Kaiserzeit, the Third Reich, the Middle Ages, younameit. If Vikings operated sexual slavery in a time when sexual slavery was commonplace and or even a necessity due to high female mortality and/or times of strife, then it doesn't mean we should emulate this example in the slightest. It merely means it's something that should be seen in the context of its times. :)

This works two ways: For one, it wards us from repeating mistakes from the past without having to discard the underlying spirit of the emulated era altogether. For another, it also allows us to point towards the times when people accuse us of barbaric practices in the past - since they were a mirror of the times.

It indeed even actually facilitates the ability for people to identify with the entire history of their folk: The parts, times and practices they have a more damning viewpoint about can be put into perspective and accepted as part of our history just as much as those they have a more reverent viewpoint of. :thumbup

Bärin
Monday, September 18th, 2017, 08:45 AM
I'm getting tired of those threads. :oanieyes

Wall Street "predators" aren't the epitome of Germanicness, they're greedy capitalist pigs who worship individualism and materialism. Many of them are career prostitutes who will lower themselves to anything as long as it brings them an extra buck. Lying, stealing, fooling people into loans, plunging Germanic families in debt, taking their possessions and serving ZOG instead of Germanics. Some "predators", dressed like yuppies and sitting behind a computer in an airconditioned office. :thumbdown

Slave imperialism and globalisation are not Germanic. Why should more aliens be brought to our lands, not to mention sexual relationships with them? Giving xenophiles another wet dream is not a reason to prostitute our nations even further.

Same as those people who bleach their hair and use Vikings supposedly bleaching theirs as an excuse, or wear long greasy hair, do magic mushrooms and psychedelic drugs, tattoo their faces, body piercings and other degenerations. Vikings also took a sh*t in forests and wiped themselves in bushes with leaves or acorns, let's do the same, under the clear moonlight. Stop showering and reduce our bathing to once a week, what else? :oanieyes

There is a clear underlying agenda to justify violence against women and excuse decadence like mixing and sexual looseness. Ironic how the same people who bash traditional family and children support deviances like homosexuality, transsexuality, "polyamory", "negative population growth"... how is any of that about Germanic preservation? :|

Nordic Angel
Monday, September 18th, 2017, 10:18 AM
So let's check - we have:

- Globalization / international trade
- Capitalism
- Sexual Slavery
and massive interethnic race mixing
, all around the VIIth to Xth century... All this has nothing to do with modern "disgruntled middle class" weaklings types who oppose all those things in the name of "traditionalism"... Nothing to do with "white knights who don't rape"... Hilarious. All that is modern, domesticated, christianized "small Whites" stuff.
My logical conclusion of your post is simply that our "Viking ancestors" better shouldn't have done all these horrible things and terrorize European folks and especially women with it, because then these folks would never have had a good reason to convert to Christianity in order to escape from this. If Pagans had had higher values, then maybe we would still be majority Pagan today, instead of Christian. When Christianity ended all this, of course the people rather wanted to be Christian and free instead of Pagan and enslaved and abused.


The Church was against Christians being forced into slavery by “the heathen” Vikings. One account describes how a monk was so shocked at seeing Christian slaves for sale in Hedeby in 870, that he sold all his possessions and personally bought the slaves their freedom.

And by the way, this is a forum for Germanic preservation. Even if our "Viking ancestors" did all these despicable things - they do not lead to Germanic preservation! Or where do you see the masses of Viking armys today that still hold power over Europe? Where are they?

They are gone because obviously their way of life did not lead to their preservation. So that is rather an argument for not behaving like they did. If they hadn't behaved like that, European people would never have needed to convert to Christianity just to espace from slavery and abuse.

So these "Viking ancestors" can only be seen as traitors of our folk and race. Their way of life harmed us instead of bringing us forward. Germanic preservation can only be achieved through high moral values and traditional Germanic families with many happy and healthy Germanic children! This is obvious! And that's why we should live like that, instead of behaving like degenerate savages.

Theunissen
Monday, September 18th, 2017, 12:11 PM
Google "Moral Universalism". This concepet is deeply ingrained in people's minds by christiany and is polluting their view of the Germanic Ancestors. I'll let myself quote one of my favourite books on the topic:

"[...]Regardless of what justification someone might use to defend a system of morality, virtually everyone equates the word "morality" with a code of conduct based on altruism and universal compassion (even if the details may differ between various systems).

The Vikings would have thought of that as a stinking pile of dragon excrement.
As far as universalism is concerned I see the roots of this rather stemming from Greek and Roman philosophy than from Christianity. Although this will have spread via the Catholic Church, of course, since they had a system of authority, education and organisation that allowed for spreading messages and ideas, which didn't exist previously.

The Catholic Church and also the Protestants accepted that there is a worldly realm and a churchly one. Which both had their own rules and ethics.




The only connection between religion and morality in the Norse world was that they were both part of the same cultural system. Morality didn't derive from religion, and religion didn't derive from morality[...]

It still was a world view. And the Germanic world view as still based on religion as a lingual analysis would demonstrate. The Catholic Church tries to base their Ethics on compassion and humanity (which is btw. the same what the free masons do - and not entirely biblical). The Germanic Ethics, which I don't claim were uniform, were merely honor based.




Furthermore, whether or not the Vikings even had a standard of morality is debatable, and depends on how you choose to define the word "morality". If morality is defined broadly and loosely as simply a standard of conduct that one is expected to follow in one's day-to-day life - the definition we'll be using here is this chapter - the the Vikings did have their own morality. Such a definition is wide enough to include what the German philospher Friedrich Nietzsche famously called "morality of mores" - that is, a system of morality that consists of nothing more than social norms. That was the only kind of morality the Vikings had.

As said most likely not uniform as many think today based on simplification and limited knowledge. But I think the tribes will have some type of ethos, remember the very word Ethnos is related to Ethos.

The above may or may not have occurred, but there is no indication on how normative this really was.



As you can probably guess from the preceding chapter, the Vikings weren't big on the idea of "free will", which we today tend to see as the basis for moral action. The idea of a fixed fate greatly constrained the range of moral choices, such that will was only ever "free" in a partial and provisional sense, and those choices that were left were essentially just matters of meeting that fate in a particular way."

(Sorry for any mistakes, I've written it by hand, don't have an e-book on hand.)

Also, you should familiarize yourself with Heimdall's (or Odin's in disguise, as some interpret it) three sons and three social castes present in a natural Germanic Society.

That would be from the Rigsthula dealing with Jarl, Carl and thrall. which loosely is nobility, free commoners and serfs. This persisted btw. for long.

Uwe Jens Lornsen
Sunday, September 24th, 2017, 03:22 PM
Perhaps one should consider to use labels

Maidservant (Magd)

Churl (Knecht)

instead of "slaves" .

Especially when reports were written from people
with traditions of multiple marriages,
one needs to be cautious.

The Old Testament notes two main wives to Jacob,
and each main wife had it's slave as maidservant.
And the slave maidservant Lea was giving birth most of the four women.

In a group will always be leaders by strength , intelligence and talking skills,
and followers being considered "slaves" .

SpearBrave
Tuesday, September 26th, 2017, 12:22 AM
I once seen a bumper sticker that said "If you don't like slavery, than don't own them". Yeah I know it is just a catch slogan, but if you think about it like so many other things it can have deeper meanings. Just some food for thought.

Slavery in general is a thing of the past and it should remain in the past. I don't agree that the "Vikings" are equal to todays Wall Street brokers. The "Vikings" were really just pirates and nothing more. Wall street brokers are just what they are, scammers robbing people of their pensions and nothing more, they do it by deception and sneaky business dealings, "Vikings" were warriors that could and did live off the land, most Wall street bankers would commit suicide if they had to raise or hunt their own food and brave the harsh elements.....in essence they are pussies, not the same as a "Viking" warrior on a raid.

Raiding and pirating are part of our past and again should remain in the past. To say it is Germanic or un-Germanic it is a mute point because the rest the world was involved in it at the same time. I would like to think we have evolved away from these things and focus more on the technologies we have gained since those times.

Ocko
Thursday, September 28th, 2017, 03:48 AM
In German wie have the Word 'Leute' gong back to Liuti and has the Same Root as 'lewd' meaning something like 'people'

It Most likely likely refers to the class of people who had been unfree.

.....and it must be very old.

In the Edda Heimdall created the different classes of men, from thrall, to farmer/warrior to noble men. He gave them colors: the thrall-black, the warrior-reddish, the noble men-white.

This are actually the old colors of the German flag: black-white-red

It seems that he warrior/King (priest kings) invaded the German lands and oppressed the original inhabitants into servitude.

There is actually a gap: the free man and landowner/farmer.

In Heimdalls creation the red is the color for farmer/warriors.

One might think, that the oppressors, most likely Aryan people with this caste system invaded Germany.

Certainly the northern Germans had close relationships with the Scandinavian folks, the Danes, Frisian and Saxons intermarried. Herzog Widukind had a Danish princess as wife. (Their stone grave still exists in Niedersachsen)


Hamlet: ......there is no bad or good, only thinking makes it so.

Sigurd
Monday, October 2nd, 2017, 03:17 AM
In German wie have the Word 'Leute' gong back to Liuti and has the Same Root as 'lewd' meaning something like 'people' [...] It Most likely likely refers to the class of people who had been unfree.

This is completely wrong and skewed. :P

Leute comes from Proto-Germanic *leudi and referred to those members of the populace that were allowed to partake in the Thing, cf. ON ljóđr and OE lēode and - by extension Latin liber 'free', all of which from PIE *h₁lewdʰ- 'person, folk, people'. The current cognate in modern English would be lede, it is obsolete in the Queen's English but found in various dialects. :)

Lewd on the other hand comes from OE lęwede 'unlearned'. Sure, a link has been proposed that it comes, via Latin and Old French, from Old Greek laikos 'of the people', cf. layman. Notice here however that you correctly identify that laos is the commonfolk as such as opposed to demos, it's associated representation and ethnos, the folk as a whole.

This would mean that it ultimately you are somewhat correct in the two having the same root. In a Germanic sense however, they meant quite different things: One meant the free man capable of deciding over the fate of at least his immediate soil, and perhaps his village and/or tribe. The other was only ever introduced to describe that part of the population that was completely excepted from the decision-making process, and only then everyone once the Doomsday Book basically made peasants out of the old Anglo-Saxon chieftains. ;)


This are actually the old colors of the German flag: black-white-red

The Imperial flag was only ever envisioned in 1866 as a merger between the Prussian flag (black-white) and the flag-combination most commonly found in other Northern-German states (red-white).

The current FRG colours are actually older than that, because they were already held by the first Student corps in the battles against Napoleon 1813-15. The original Urburschenschaft used Black-Red-Gold from 1815 and a painting of Germania holding that flag adorned the outside of the buillding holding the Frankfurt Assembly 1848-49.

The reason that Black-Red-Gold is completely unheraldic in comparison to Black-White-Red is of course because of its academic/student origin. Academic corporations are not, and were never bound, by the laws of heraldry. So, if you will, SRG is the flag that organically outgrew its original purpose to be used as an all-German flag, whilst SWR is a compromise that was based on the attempt of pushing Austria out of Germany.

This is chiefly the reason why I use SRG over SWR, the fact it's completely abused by the current German governments doesn't change this fact. In fact, if we made this link, we'd have to scrap like three quarters or more of flags of Germanic countries currently in use. :P

Ravenrune
Saturday, October 6th, 2018, 02:49 PM
I think we need to keep in mind that "Vikings" aren't synonymous with all Norse people. They were basically people from the population who went out exploring and pirating.

I would like to investigate more regarding how the usual population (those staying on the land) felt about those that we call 'vikings' (who went out 'viking'? Perhaps it's more of a verb). Were the 'vikings' restless and troublesome men who the general population was glad to see go off to sea? I don't know but it's one idea I want to look into.

Within any population, there are people any of us find annoying and irritating. If I lived next to certain biker gang headquarters, I'd be not only annoyed at all the racket but concerned with the various illegal activities.

It's possible the things some "vikings" did out there might have seemed wrong to other segments of the Norse people. I'm just pondering since I don't know but I feel like investigating more.


However, I feel it has been a false concept to think of the Norse as the same as Vikings when vikings were a segment of the Norse but certainly no the whole thing.

---------------------

Regarding slavery , who didn't have slavery (I'm not excusing it but it's a fact that it was a universal thing)? Even natives of North and South America and various peoples in Africa had slaves and captives. Even now, slavery is still going on in the world but we tend to not talk about it because it's less within our parts of the world.


One thing I find annoying (and dangerous) is the common and promoted idea that only white people had slavery when a lot of the time white people were slaves (and that these various peoples complaining about white people all had their own slavery in the past)! This promoted idea is dangerous because it promotes a one-sided modern guilt (especially if this is what you are taught over and over .... perhaps we need an Irish Roots TV series?!) which can make nations do things such as ... well... I don't know ... open the borders to millions of uneducated foreign young males who just want to take advantage of the European guilt mentality for free support.

Astragoth
Saturday, October 6th, 2018, 09:25 PM
I don't get in to the hero worship of Vikings. They were blonde, thats nice. They also used to sell Christian girls to Muslims.
The Russians are the Vikings direct descendants and look how they behave.

Žoreišar
Sunday, October 7th, 2018, 01:37 AM
I don't get in to the hero worship of Vikings. They were blonde, thats nice.They discovered the North-American mainland, with the help of ship building skills that went unsurpassed for 500 years. They were feared warriors throughout all of Europe, and made up the backbone of the Byzantine Emperor's guard for centuries. They conquered lands ruled by people considered much more civilized and advanced at the time. If the Normans would have invaded England before Harald Hardrade in 1066, we'd possibly be having this conversation in Norwegian. ;)


They also used to sell Christian girls to Muslims.Where did you get that from?


The Russians are the Vikings direct descendants and look how they behave.Hardly. The Rurik dynasty was of Norse descent, which ended in the early 17th century. But the plebs of the Kievan and Russian Empire were always made up of Slavs by the outmost majority.

SpearBrave
Sunday, October 7th, 2018, 04:36 PM
Keep in mind the Vikings or more properly the Norse were the last of the Germanic tribes to resist Christianity and by studying them we get a glimpse into what pre-Christen Germanic tribes may have behaved like.

John Smithwick
Tuesday, May 14th, 2019, 09:17 PM
So let's check - we have:
- Globalization / international trade
- Capitalism
- Sexual Slavery
- Massive inter-ethnic race mixing


, all around the VIIth to Xth century... All this has nothing to do with White nationalist fantasies and modern "disgruntled middle class" weaklings types who oppose all these things in the name of "traditionalism"... Nothing to do with modern "white knights who don't rape"... All that is modern, domesticated, christianized "small Whites" stuff.

The truth is that the true spiritual descendants of the Viking captains are the guys today who are trading stuff in Wall Street and plundering whole economies in the Third World. These guys are predators, not prey.

The "traditionalists" on the other hand are just modern day peasants who feel weak are are finding every excuse that the weak should be protected, whether they are "far right" or "far left".

I mean, the domestication of Whites who do not rape anymore might be a great thing in a way, but it's a Christian thing! Not a pagan one. And it's not a specifically White character or Germanic one. It is the pure result of:
1. Christianization and
2. Outbreeding (https://forums.skadi.info/showthread.php?t=153312) (which made people care about the world at large and not only their own tribe)


Conclusion: If you have higher morals, great. But then thank Jesus Christ for it. It has nothing to do with Germanicness or "paganism"...While I thanked you for your post, I disagree with your conclusions. I'm no expert in history, but I think you're being way too one sided, and you're citing (((modern sources of information))) that are partially meant to defame and libel our ancient ancestors and affirm Christianity.

Certainly the Vikings deserve criticism, but they did a lot of good things as well. They were also their own entity/regime, and not necessarily reflective of all Pagan Europe.

Britain remained Pagan after Rome left for a couple hundred years (until the 7th century), ... Germany largely remained Pagan up until they were fully converted in the 8th and 9th century; Scandinavia - the 11th century; the Baltics - the 14th century. We don't know what their policies were exactly, but I doubt rape was ever legal in those societies. Also the Vikings implemented the female booty policy towards foreign conquered people, not what they considered their own people.

Also, you seem to imply slavery was a Pagan Germanic thing, whenever Christian Europe engaged in slavery throughout its existence. Serfs were essentially slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Middle_Ages_2

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Middle_Ages_2)In any event, I think the end of slavery had much more to do with technological progress, than any religious morality and those who suggest otherwise are dreaming.

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

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery)You also seem to suggest, by extension of inter-ethnic mixing, that inter-racial mixing was a Pagan thing. Firstly, the Vikings were mainly stealing gorgeous White women living in the British Isles to take as wives, who looked essentially the same as the ones back home. With respect to Christianity, yes at one point it had anti-miscegenation laws in the New World (the Old World didn't need them because there essentially were no non-Whites in Europe), but those laws didn't last (there's little to nothing in Christianity that is against inter-racial mixing; in fact, there are numerous verses which encourage it).

Also, Christians always believed in converting all the non-Whites during colonialism (I don't think Pagans believed in that to the same extent if at all; they lived at a time where they barely encountered non-Whites, but from what we know about their policies towards fellow Europeans, they partially respected the other religions). By converting all the non-Whites, it made inter-racial mixing more possible. Today Christianity is facilitating the rapid erasure of our race through openly promoting mass immigration and race mixing (all are one through Christ as the saying goes), so it's sort of a moot point anyways.

The nice thing about Pagan Europe was that each polytheism uniquely represented a nation/tribe, thus it was more nationalistic and racialist in a way. They were also more tolerant in some ways: they might honor other Gods as a token of respect, and not get too serious about any of their own Gods. They incorporated Jesus. Christians, however, would do the opposite: they would erase our indigenous Gods, destroy our temples, and burn us alive if we refused to convert. I'm hoping that Skadi is a place where we can embrace our indigenous faiths and clear the record.

Rodulf
Tuesday, May 14th, 2019, 11:46 PM
I have been racially and spiritually awake for about 2 decades, now. One of the pitfalls of re-connecting to our ancestors is the human tendency to project our desires and fantasies onto people that are no longer here. Everyone does this. We have evolved and see a different world, now. Even though I seek deeper contact with the Elder Kin through ritual, Runes and meditations, I have no illusions about them. Many were despicable and should have been hanged. Not all were honorable warriors or great heroes. They were humans, living in a harsh world. That being said, many were the epitome of honor, courage and heroic warrior ethos that showed mercy to a fallen foe. In the Tain Bo Coulange, the ancient Irish tell us of their contempt for "unequal combat" against weaker foes. Admittedly, this was to garner greater glory, and not from altruism. But it shows the Divine Warrior Archetype within the Aryan Folk.

So..."The Vikings had slaaaveees!" squeal the people wearing two hundred dollar sneakers made by Chinese slave labor...

Oh, before I go...ancient Pagans had MUCH harsher punishments for rape that christinsanity ever did. Check out Arcarya S "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" for info.

Rodulf
Tuesday, May 14th, 2019, 11:49 PM
Absolutely, John!