Viking mythology and all that goes with it

[DragonKeeper]

Hitler wasn't just after the Jews....
He started with his own people which included all who were thought of as weak (so invalids, criples, the mentally ill, the terminally ill, the sick, the poor and homeless, the elderly, homosexuals, and everyone else who didn't agree with his policies). This was originally Bismark's idea. In my opinion he was truely the father of modern fascism. The idea behind it was that if you purge the State from these "weaklings" and "useless beings" that are no longer able to contribute to society and the wealth of the State, your State and government will become stronger. After Hitler and his party finished that, the Jews were next since many had achieved considerable wealth that was seen as a threat, and then the Slavs, and probably the French, Communist governments, the English, then who knows...he was stopped before his plans escalated further.
As far as Hitler being Christian I do not know....

 

[F_Slim]

Actually in the "Third Reich" they tried to recreate the believes in the old gods (Odin, Thor ...) !!!
Not the way it was, but to show off strength and the "german race" as a strong and superior race to other humans.
A lot of books with the Sagas came out at that time, but one should be carefull when reading them, since there's also a lot of propaganda in it (and wrong facts with that).
A lot of Neonazis are still pseudo-believers, which lead to a lot of problems for Asatru in germany, since these groups use runes as symbols, so some symbols are forbidden by law! (Since they are now related to some shitheaded hate-groups, and after all germany is a christian country ... "Runes, a religous symbol?? Never heard of it!" )

 

[Knarfi]

Well maybe the governement should look a bit better to what the meaning of those runes realy are.. not some racistic or what ever symbol..

 

[Larsson]

Forbidding symbols is ridicolous in the first place.

 

[Tyra]

And besides, each government only has jurisdiction in their own country (unless your name is Bush, ofcourse).

 

[DragonKeeper]

Actually in the "Third Reich" they tried to recreate the believes in the old gods (Odin, Thor ...) !!!
Not the way it was, but to show off strength and the "german race" as a strong and superior race to other humans.
A lot of books with the Sagas came out at that time, but one should be carefull when reading them, since there's also a lot of propaganda in it (and wrong facts with that).
A lot of Neonazis are still pseudo-believers, which lead to a lot of problems for Asatru in germany, since these groups use runes as symbols, so some symbols are forbidden by law! (Since they are now related to some shitheaded hate-groups, and after all germany is a christian country ... "Runes, a religous symbol?? Never heard of it!" )

That even occured before the "Third Reich". Remember the ever present teutonic knight, thor, odin, etc? Then you have people like Wagner and his operas like The Ring. In an atempt to strengthen a sense of German nationalism, many old tales, folklore, and sagas and stories about the old gods were brought out to the public. I'm sure the volkskunde movement was influenced by this as well. Although many good things came out of the volkskunde folklorist movement such as Grimm's fairytales hehe.
Meh neonazis....I wonder of they ever get nightmares about becoming Jewish? "Aaauurgghhg! I just had the worst nightmare...I dreamed that I became a Jew and went to the Sinahgoge! And...and then we went home for a kosher meal and celebrated Hanehkah! Auuuaggh!" OK I'm done now....

Anyway...as much as those neonazi buggers irritate me (and there are plenty of them around here to deal with) you cannot let a few fools ruin a religion and way of life that never had anything to do with them in the first place. And yes, I agree that forbidding certain symbols just becase certain groups use or have used them negatively even though those symbols have been used for centuries prior to the invention of those groups is ludicrous. Asatru is for the believers of the old religion, but it is up to each individual to decide why they choose to believe. After all, only those who are true, noble, and worthy will receive guidence and blessings from the gods. Abuse it, and you lose it. (according to the many tales and sagas)...in a nutshell hehe

 

[Tyra]

Thank you for that, DragonKeeper. I think the thing to do is to "re-claim" OUR symbols. Use them appropriately and answer questions with nothing but the truth. (The problem is that sometimes people don't ask, they just thump you, but that's a different story...when and where it's appropriate is the key.)

 

[F_Slim]

Now I have a totally different question:
The Lyrics to "Down the Slopes of Death" are:
"Today he'll draw his final breath
The wisest God of all
His son will avenge his death
Jormundr's brother will fall"

Who is Jormundr's brother?
It's Loki, right?
I am a bit confused about the Deities family tree, since they appear with different names everywhere ... I know, that Jormundr is another name of Odin. Odin has two brothers, Vili and Vé.
I actually know them as Hönir (Vili) and Loki (Vé). Is that correct??
It would make perfect sense, since then Jormundr's brother is Loki, who will fall at Ragnarök (slain by Heimdall and vise versa).
But since I'm so confused because of the many names, I wanted to make sure I got that all right?

 

[Tyra]

I don't claim to know what's behind the lyrics, but here goes, according to lore:
Jormundr is Odin. Villi and Ve are his "biological brothers", also known as Höner and Lodur. Loki, on the other hand, is refered to as "Odin's brother" because he and Odin took a blood oath, and so are blood-brothers, or foster brothers, if you will.
So, it would be correct to say that on Odin's last day, his blood-brother (who in ON law = brother) Loki will die at the hands of Odin's son, Thor, in vengeance. Thor then kills Lokis son, Jörmundgard, but is also killed by Jörmungard's venomous bite./T

 

[Sleipnir]

I don't claim to know what's behind the lyrics, but here goes, according to lore:
Jormundr is Odin. Villi and Ve are his "biological brothers", also known as Höner and Lodur. Loki, on the other hand, is refered to as "Odin's brother" because he and Odin took a blood oath, and so are blood-brothers, or foster brothers, if you will.
So, it would be correct to say that on Odin's last day, his blood-brother (who in ON law = brother) Loki will die at the hands of Odin's son, Thor, in vengeance. Thor then kills Lokis son, Jörmundgard, but is also killed by Jörmungard's venomous bite./T

Interesting, I always got the impression that "His son will avenge his death
Jormundr's brother will fall" was that Vidar, Odins son who kills Fenris at Ragnarok and Jormungand and Fenris are children by Loki, therefore Fenris is Jormungands "brother".

 

[Tyra]

Yeah, I guess I was thinking in terms of "The wisest God of all
His son will avenge his death". I suppose it depends on where you put the emphasis in the sentence as you read it out... Never thought of it that way. Cool.
Mind you, don't confuse Jörmundgard and Jormundr!

 

[Larsson]

I'd like to know a little more about the status thralls had in the viking society. From what I have heard it seems that they where treated a little better then your average slave.

What I do know is that the thralls could be excepted into the family/clan/whatever-it's-called-in-english if they worked hard and bahaved. How often did that happen in practice though?

I have also read in a book that the thralls where generally kinda few. I read that just around 1(maybe it was 5)% of the population in the viking controlled areas in england where thralls, while 20% in the areas controlled by other peoples where thralls. Exception rather then rule?

How hard work did they actually have to do? Since the church wasnt around to take everything they actually produced, I don't suspect they had to work that much harer then the avarage freeman. Jarls and kings liked to get their hands dirty in that era, so to speak. And they didnt have to build anything like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pyramids or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wall_of_China. The conclusion for that I have come to now is that the vikings didnt have to compensate for small cocks.

How would an avarge persons working day have looked as opposed to that of a thralls? Working hours, amounth of food intake etc.

Edit: Damn. Misspelled the thread title.

 

[Spiral1018]

www.vikinganswerlady.com

If it isn't on there she can find out. It's a pretty cool site.

 

[Donnie Darko]

www.vikinganswerlady.com

If it isn't on there she can find out. It's a pretty cool site.

that is a pretty sweet site

 

[Tyra]

Yeah, she's really good. Disregard the costuming page, though.
Anyhow, thralls... This is not something that I am terribly good at, as the things that I AM good at generally come from having studied them archaeologically. Thralls don't appear much in that material, as they just tend to be in the background, one of the masses. They certainly don't get many mounds or stones raised for them! Re your questions, though:
1. Yes, they were treated better than what we generally think of as "slaves".
2. Thralls could be accepted into families, thralls' children by thrall women and the master certainly were. Thralls that did well could receive payment for their work and eventually buy their freedom, or receive monies elsewhere and buy out. Some were just given their freedom anyhow, if they were much beloved. ON were pragmatics - you treat someone well they'll do well for you (which is not to say that there are not exceptions). I can imagine, though, that being going from being a regular 12-year old Celt to a thrall in the snow in Sweden could not have been perceived as too much fun, especially NOT for a girl.
3. I have no idea how many there were. I really don't think anyone does, but one thing is for sure: the ON could have never maintained their lifestyle the way it was in the iron age without the thralls. Goes to #4. Read on. However, I don't think there were as many thralls in the Scandinavian countries (certainly not in the Danelaw, see #4) as there were in, for example, Rome. The vikings' main exports would have been pelts and textiles and SLAVES. The fact that you take slaves in raids doesn't mean that you keep them. Vikings were tradesmen, and the trade in slaves was one of their favourite ones - you get something for nothing, and then you sell it for lots of silver. What they brought back was the stuff they traded for the slaves, not the thralls themselves. Besides, thralls are a renewable resource. Once you have one or two, you don't need to buy more, because they multiply if you feed them well. The children will grow up strong and also be your thralls.
4. Thralls did general duties on the farmstead. The women would milk, spin, sew, weave, tend to children and be availible to "warm the bed" of whomever required it. Some were good healers. The men did labour, anything that needs to get done on a farm.
The lady of the house was in charge of the home when her husband and his warriors went viking. Smaller farmsteads would not necessarily have had the money to purchase a thrall, but a large farm cannot be run by one woman whilst producing enough fabric etc to trade for next season. It is detrimental to have labourforce then. That's what the thralls were.
Occasionally thralls got to come to new settlements with their masters, but oftentimes, they had to stay behind to tend to the original farm. That may be why you see a low number of thralls in settlements away from the Nordic countries.
There's a guy doing a thesis on this. I wonder if I have the name of that paper somewhere... Will have to dig in my vast pile of papers to find out.

 

[Knarfi]

...that being going from being a...(line 10/11)

.. wtf?

Anyway, another question. In many stories Loki is together with the Gods (in peace) but he is a giant, how come they didnt kill him? even after all those things he did.. like stealing the apples etc. And another thing, Loki actually helped the gods with defeating some giants right? I mean he bet with Brokk, wich was the reason for brokk to forge Mjolnir and some more items..

 

[Tyra]

.. wtf?

Huh? Waddaya mean? They took children as slaves, as well as grown men and women. All I meant was, that I don't imagine it being much fun, no matter how nice your master is, to go from being a freeman's child to a Norse thrall. Get it? (Oh, did you think I meant "that being" like a monster or something? I meant being as in "to be".)

Gawd, that Loki thing again... Loki is totally misunderstood by most with Christian background. Keep that in mind. Now, say you had a brother whom you loved very much. Would you lop off his head cuz he fucked up a few times? (When you answer that, keep in mind my brother is Johan... He pulled my hair once!) Loki is the god of mischief. Think of it like that, not like he's "evil" in the Christina sense. He's just like a little kid that wants attention, any which way he can get it, good or bad. Then when he fucks up, and draws bad attention, he tries very hard to fix it, as in your above example. It's not until he gets completely unforgiven by the gods and goddesses that the shit really hits the fan and he sides entirely with the giants and brings down Raganarök.
Loki was only half giant. Besides, the giants weren't killed by default.
Anyhow, Loki is a really deep character. There are so many layers of the Loki stories that you have to really be aware of the context of Norse culture to pick up on. Most people that do not grow up in Scandinavia don't automatically "get it" but have to learn it by reading it, so the above is just my own feelings and really constitute the tip of the iceberg. I love Loki very much. I think of him like a little brother sort of character. I would never dream of lopping his head off... He's necessary for the stories, and thus the world, to make sense. Which probably doesn't make any sense to you at all, right? /T.

 

[F_Slim]

... I guess I'll have to dump that book I have ... I actually liked it, since the stories are told and explained quite well, but some very important facts are just totally messed up (like identifying Loki with Vé/Lodur)

But talking about Loki ... I actually don't like him. But I agree that he is crucial to the stories. Somehow he is the driving force. Without him, a lot of things just wouldn't happen.
Also in ... what's it called in english? "Lokis Zankreden", "Lokasenna", he's like a mirror reflecting all the faults and failures of all gods and godesses. Reminding us, that they are not perfect at all. Maybe that's why I don't really like him actually
But that's also why I think he's so important.
About "bringing down Ragnarök", I am not so sure ... in a way it just happens ... also because of things the others did wrong.

I'm still not sure what to think of Ragnarök itself though.

 

[Tyra]

Bingo!

 

[Larsson]

I’m beginning to wonder if it wasn’t completely necessary to have slaves to run a successful agricultural civilization in those times. I mean, more or less every people at that technological level in history had had them. Christians peoples where also guilty of owning slaves, no matter what modern Christians may claim. What would gems like this other have sprung from?:

If a man pampers his servant from childhood, he will turn out to be stubborn. (Proverbs 29:21 NAB)

and:

‘’Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.’’ (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

and:

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." Exodus 21:20-21 NAB

That doesn’t make sense on any level whatsoever to me. Don’t you love it when you tell Christian people that all of Europe was basically christianized by swords and altering of the bible to fit the people they where currently brainwashing, they’ll tell you ‘’Well, those where obviously not real Christians’’. Though this behavior seems to have plenty of support in the bible:

"The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords." (Hosea 13:16 NLT)

and:

"I brought hunger to every city and famine to every town. But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.
"I kept the rain from falling when you needed it the most, ruining all your crops. I sent rain on one town but withheld it from another. Rain fell on one field, while another field withered away. People staggered from one town to another for a drink of water, but there was never enough. But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.
"I struck your farms and vineyards with blight and mildew. Locusts devoured all your fig and olive trees. But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.
"I sent plagues against you like the plagues I sent against Egypt long ago. I killed your young men in war and slaughtered all your horses. The stench of death filled the air! But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD.
"I destroyed some of your cities, as I destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Those of you who survived were like half-burned sticks snatched from a fire. But still you wouldn't return to me," says the LORD. (Amos 4:6-11 NLT)
I can only conclude that their ‘’LORD’’ is really stupid.

This is of course all from the old testament, which Christians themselves will say is not in use, though the next minute they may quote the ten commandments. And didn’t Jesus say?:

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

Talk about selective morality. It doesn’t make any sense to me. It equals to something like being a Jew loving nazi. If these fools actually read some history or even the bible I doubt there would be many Christians left, except for the truly mindless.

Back to slaves:

Later in the middle ages people didn’t have slaves though, but they WHERE on the other hand more or less starving. But that could be because of the influence of the church, maybe people would have made it just fine if they wouldn’t have to give a 1/10 of there produce to the church, or the concepts of buying oneself free from guilt of sin and all the other clever ways the godly men came up with to bring in some coin. If the farming gear and techniques where significantly better at those times my theory may still hold.