{Edit: In case this wasn't clear enough, this is me fangirling. About Hetalia. OBVIOUSLY.}

I started reading Tacitus' Germania, and figured that quite a lot of social structures have not changed that much (granted, Tacitus does not delve as deep as he could have - but the few limited views he grants us, I find quite telling). They coincide with Viking social structure quite nicely. Does not sound that amazing (yet), but if you consider most sources on Viking society were written during the high middle ages... that's a gap of about 1000 odd years. Has so little changed? Or rather, are the fundamental powers still intact because of the things which have NOT changed (landscape, climate, foes)? Plus, isn't the sheer preservation in the face of Christianity just astonishing! Regardless, using what we know of Viking homosexuality and its hazards to back us up, Tacitus' record on punishment suddenly gains another level of meaning - So lets recapture, and then assume...

[Licet apud concilium accusare quoque et discrimen capitis intendere. distinctio poenarum ex delicto: proditores et transfugas arboribus suspendunt, ignavos et imbelles et corpore infames caeno ac palude, iniecta insuper crate, mergunt. Diversitas supplicii illuc respicit, tamquam scelera ostendi oporteat, dum puniuntur, flagitia abscondi.] In their councils an accusation may be preferred or a capital crime prosecuted. Penalties are distinguished according to the offense. Traitors and deserters are hanged on trees; the coward, the unwarlike, the man stained with abominable vices, is plunged into the mire of the morass, with a hurdle put over him. This distinction in punishment means that crime, they think, ought, in being punished, to be exposed, while infamy ought to be buried out of sight.                                                                                                                      - Germania, Ch. XII

I am merely speculating, of course. Considering virðing/drengskapr (similar to lat. virtus) as the forever unachievable ideal/social system, its origin and power it undeniably had over Vikings, the punishment for cowards does not seem so out of place anymore. The opposite of honor is shame, and what shames a man more if not meeting the ideal - an ideal, that is the ultimate goal of each individual. If a man is less than what he is supposed to be - what is he, then? Something different, the opposite. He must, by default, thus be female (or an animal.) Now, I won't open that Pandora's box today of how women were viewed - mostly because Tacitus' record of that differs a little from later Viking society's standard - and skip right into the actual argument instead:

Perversity, "the man stained with abominable vices", is regarded as severe as cowardice. How do these two coincide? Taking into account that only the receiving partner in a homosexual encounter had to suffer the full penalty of his sordid (or should I say sorðinn? Hurhurhur) act while the active partner is undoubtedly the victor, homosexuality was first and foremost a demonstration of dominance.It was a practice used against enemies and competitors as means of establishing a position within society. There was nothing shameful in using a man like a woman, but certainly in being used, in submitting and becoming less than a man. Simply the accusation of being a coward and thus unmanly, was so utterly shameful, a discredit disrupting not only to the man's equilibrium (helgi), but his kin's, that the Icelandic and Norwegian laws demanded the death (or exile) of the accuser, if it was unfounded.

Due to Tacitus' accumulation, we can easily make the connection between the coward, the unmanly and the sexual deviant. They all denote the same kind of person. It is obvious, then, why they would all be doomed to the same fate as well. Unlike traitors and deserters, whose crime it were to nourish different morals and not a fundamental flaw in their nature. One could even assume, that hanging traitors up on trees for all to see, the meaning becomes "Don't do it", as opposed to the unmistakable message of "Don't be it" when it comes to the second group of offenders.

I am not sure whether anyone has compared Tacitus' account of Germanic life/costume etc with the much later age of the Vikings, but I am sure, I wasn't the first one to follow that train of thought.  Aaaaanyways. What's more important right now... OMG I CAN HAZ?

Omigud, you guys. YOU GUYS. I got my BA-paper topic, finally. Guess what it is? That's right.

FOR HONOR & GLORY

- The Sense of Honor during Viking Times: Dealing with the thickheadedness of super machos

You know what that means!!


/o\

Can I say WIN?


Oh yeah, does anyone of you guys go to the CIL/LBM this weekend? :>

* starring: Odin the Woman.

Alright, doing Alliteration verses in the tradition of dem Skalds is fucking hard. Ok? IT'S HARD. It's not just putting same sounds together and you're done. Oh man, I wished. ò_ó But I'll learn it, koste was es wolle.

That said, I filled out a character meme (written, not drawn). First time ever. I don't know why I did it - probably because I was procrastinating and I needed an excuse. Which led me to do a lot of research that was - in fact- unnecessary but still enjoyable. Thus filling out this meme took longer than it should have. Woops.



It's pretty dumb so what. ):

Palnatoke, or how I learned it (read about it) as Palnatoki. Or even Toke Palnasson. Either way, he "was a legendary Danish hero and chieftain of the island of Fyn. He raised Harald Bluetooth's son Sweyn Forkbeard and was a staunch supporter of the old pagan faith. He consequently convinced Sweyn to wage war on his own father, and Palnatoke slew Harald. The antagonism may also be based on the fact that Palnatoke was the grandson of the Geatish earl Jarl Ottar, who had been killed when Harald invaded Götaland.

Palnatoke founded the laws of the Jomsvikings. As a prototype of a hero he was succesfully righteous and esteemed. His death marked the decline of the Jomsvikings."

Source: Wikipedia/Inet

ö_ö Well well well.

If I mention I bought two books about Jomsvikings, it doesn't come much of a surprise, does it? I also bought one about the Templars. Anyways. Jomsvikings. Right. Lots of rilvary, making up with huge celebrations, raiding and MUCHO confusing kinship. Also: Vagn that little arrogant prat. Slayed 3 men before he reached the age of 10. Wtf. Also also: What kind of silly name is Bui? And Sigvaldi had the prettiest eyes of all men but an ugly nose? Don't make me giggle like a little school girl, goddamnit.
Plus! Thorkell the High (lol, Vinland Saga). OF COURSE THEY WERE ALL SUPER SMART AND STRONG. *nerd-mode*

Aside from that: Hello, I am lazy and not doing my work :(

The Saxon Wars are my new favourite thing *_*

Now the question is, how to bend history so as to make a not-so-Christian Saxon meet up with the still-pagan Vikings after Viking raids were in swull swing? Hmph :( Could give it a margin of 50+- or so years after 802 but then it's still only 852AD. First hibernation in England on the island Thanet in 851, tho. Hmmm. AND 865 biggest army landing in Eastanglia yet. So maybe that's not so bad.....
Anyhow, that's probably two to three generations after Christianisation took place, and the constitution was changed accordingly. Clearly enough time to change saxon society significantly.... grah! The chances are slight to find unspoiled pagans in that area during this period.

Must. Read. More. About. That. Era.



And why the heck don't I have a Viking-icon?? >:(


edit:

how cute

While reading a book about Swedish history, I stumbled over the expression "Streitaxtleute". So I looked it up, heh P: Lets educate ourselves:



Swedish-Norwegian Battle Axe culture

The Swedish-Norwegian Battle Axe culture, or the Boat Axe culture, appeared ca. 2800 BC and is known from about 3000 graves from Skåne to Uppland and Trøndelag. While amateur historian Herman Lindquist has referred to this as the "Age of crushed skulls" there is no indication that this was an especially violent time, and most of the "crushing" happened post-mortem in the ground. The "battle-axes" were primarily a status object. There are strong continuities in stone craft traditions, and very little evidence of any type of full-scale migration, least of all a violent one. The old ways were discontinued as the corresponding cultures on the continent changed, and the farmers living in Scandinavia took part in those changes since they belonged to the same network. Settlements on small, separate farmsteads without any defensive protection is also a strong argument against the people living there being aggressors. Recently also the mixture of this culture with Barbed Wire Beaker culture elements from the west that reached until Sweden in the Late Neolithic, probably ultimately derived from the same Corded Ware stock, has come into the picture.

About 3000 battle axes have been found, in sites distributed over all of Scandinavia, but they are sparse in Norrland and northern Norway. Less than 100 settlements are known, and their remains are negligible as they are located on continually used farmland, and have consequently been plowed away. Einar Østmo reports sites inside the Arctic Circle in the Lofoten Islands, and as far north as the present city of Tromsø.

It was based on the same agricultural practices as the previous Funnelbeaker culture, but the appearance of metal changed the social system. This is marked by the fact that the Funnelbeaker culture had collective megalithic graves with a great deal of sacrifices to the graves, but the Battle Axe culture has individual graves with individual sacrifices.

A new aspect was given to the culture in 1993, when a death house in Turinge, in Södermanland was excavated. Along the once heavily timbered walls were found the remains of about twenty clay vessels, six work axes and a battle axe, which all came from the last period of the culture. There were also the cremated remains of at least six people. This is the earliest find of cremation in Scandinavia and it shows close contacts with Central Europe.

In the context of the entry of Germanic into the region, Einar Østmo emphasizes that the Atlantic and North Sea coastal regions of Scandinavia, and the circum-Baltic areas were united by a vigorous maritime economy, permitting a far wider geographical spread and a closer cultural unity than interior continental cultures could attain. He points to the widely disseminated number of rock carvings assigned to this era, which display "thousands" of ships. To sea-faring cultures like this one, the sea is a highway and not a divider.

*

And from there I ended at The Nordic Bronze Age....there are so many interesting things, I don't even know where to start reading, ugh.

Etterdi at Norges rike nu så forringet er både av makt og formue, og Norges rikes innbyggere ikke alene formå at underholde dem en herre og konge...da skal det herefter være og blive under Danmarks krone, liksom et av de adnre lande, Jylland, Fyn eller Sjælland er, og herefter ikke være eller hete intet kongerike for seg, men et ledemot av Danmarks rike og under Danmarks krone til evig tid.

"Because Norway now is so poor, both politically and economically and the people of Norway cannot hold a king. Therefore - hereafter they will be subject to the king of Denmark, just as the other provinces; Jylland, Fyn and Sjælland, and hereafter neither be nor in name be a separate kingdom, but a "ledemot" (a leg/colony/province) of Denmark and the Danish king for ever more."

The til evig tid hurts a lot. This is so fucking sad, man.