View Full Version : Israel and Hamas trade blows yet again; may possibly escalate into a ground war
HoreTore
11-23-2012, 00:16
So Nordic centred, in the rest of the world we experience iron-age a bit differently.
Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware we were discussing the famous Horned Egyptian Vikings. In that case, you are of course correct. They always wore horned helmets whenever they set sail from Imaginationland to loot the coast of Atlantis.
The name of time periods change vary from place to place, simply because things happen at different speeds in different places. When one uses terms like "iron age" or "bronze age" in a discussion of viking archeology, it should be damned obvious that one is referring to the nordic iron and bronze ages, not the roman, maya or chinese ages. Add to that, you already used a nordic-centred term(viking age). While not an expert of chinese history, I highly doubt they've labeled any of their time periods "the viking age".
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-23-2012, 00:22
Lrn2hstory.
The nordic iron age ends in either 800 or 1050-ish. 2012 minus 1200 equals 812, thus iron age.
The reason why we have two end dates is because of whether the viking age should be counted as a seperate age, or as the last period of the iron age. Thus, you get 800(start of viking age) and 1050(end of viking age). SNL.no (http://snl.no/Jernalderen_i_Norge/%28ca.%20500%20f.Kr%20.–%201050%20e.Kr.%29) has 1050 as the end of the iron age in Norway.
And I will be awaiting that paper.
I'm not sure that exactly tracks - "Iron Age" is used for the period preceding written sources, usually, and there are written sources about Scandanavia long before the Viking Age or the coming of Christianity. When you think that the Celtic Iron Age ends probably a bit before the Romans arrived, or ealier.
then you have he Futhark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elder_Futhark
Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware we were discussing the famous Horned Egyptian Vikings. In that case, you are of course correct. They always wore horned helmets whenever they set sail from Imaginationland to loot the coast of Atlantis.
The name of time periods change vary from place to place, simply because things happen at different speeds in different places. When one uses terms like "iron age" or "bronze age" in a discussion of viking archeology, it should be damned obvious that one is referring to the nordic iron and bronze ages, not the roman, maya or chinese ages. Add to that, you already used a nordic-centred term(viking age). While not an expert of chinese history, I highly doubt they've labeled any of their time periods "the viking age".
No but in Scandinavia they allready had iron weapons just about a few 10 centuries earlier than you appear to be thinking.
HoreTore
11-23-2012, 00:36
I'm not sure that exactly tracks - "Iron Age" is used for the period preceding written sources, usually, and there are written sources about Scandanavia long before the Viking Age or the coming of Christianity. When you think that the Celtic Iron Age ends probably a bit before the Romans arrived, or ealier.
then you have he Futhark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elder_Futhark
And that's of course why we have labeled that period of Norwegian history "the iron age". That's also why we have two end dates, because there's some writing done in the Viking age, so that's a bit iffy.
It's usually handled by saying something like "the norwegian iron age lasts until 800 - but if you want to get really technical, it went on until around 1050".
Edit: Anyway, the view I've given above is the opinion of the academia here. I see no reason to slam every historian ever born in Norway... Exactly why they have named that period "iron age" I don't know, but if I happen across a discussion of what to call the period I can certainly pass it on if it's of any interest...
HoreTore
11-23-2012, 00:37
No but in Scandinavia they allready had iron weapons just about a few 10 centuries earlier than you appear to be thinking.
Norwegians had iron weapons in 1500BC?
What are you smoking?
Edit: The linky I gave above says the norwegian iron age started in the year 500BC and ended in 1050AD. Again, what have you been smoking?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-23-2012, 00:55
And that's of course why we have labeled that period of Norwegian history "the iron age". That's also why we have two end dates, because there's some writing done in the Viking age, so that's a bit iffy. (That's referring to vikings writing abiut themselves, obviously)
It's usually handled by saying something like "the norwegian iron age lasts until 800 - but if you want to get really technical, it went on until around 1050".
Anyway, the view I've given above is the opinion of the academia here. I see no reason to slam every historian ever born in Norway...
Must... resist... mocking... Norwegian... intellects...
No, but seriously, I'm saying I think the classification being used is off and actually a little anachronistic. If you're saying "1050" then you have to ask why, when we know so much about Norway's kings, sometimes in their own words.
HoreTore
11-23-2012, 01:11
Must... resist... mocking... Norwegian... intellects...
No, but seriously, I'm saying I think the classification being used is off and actually a little anachronistic. If you're saying "1050" then you have to ask why, when we know so much about Norway's kings, sometimes in their own words.
We actually don't have their own words, the history of our kings are mostly collected from Snorre and his kin. And I say our kings, which doesn't include danes and such(like your Knut).
Anyway, as I said, I don't know exactly why it's defined that way, so I can't really comment on that.
Kadagar_AV
11-23-2012, 01:17
Must... resist... mocking... Norwegian... intellects...
No, but seriously, I'm saying I think the classification being used is off and actually a little anachronistic. If you're saying "1050" then you have to ask why, when we know so much about Norway's kings, sometimes in their own words.
Must... resist... mocking... Jesus fan boys...
It's not anachronistic. Every geographical sphere has different time periods for their iron age.
1050 is set because one of the greatest Kings then became christian, thus ending the viking age. The end of the iron age is set with the end of the viking age, as it brought on lots of changes in society.
When did South America reach the iron age? Around 1500 or so? And then only because the iron held bullets, aimed at them.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-23-2012, 01:27
We actually don't have their own words, the history of our kings are mostly collected from Snorre and his kin. And I say our kings, which doesn't include danes and such(like your Knut).
Anyway, as I said, I don't know exactly why it's defined that way, so I can't really comment on that.
Cnut was a King of Norway just like he was a King of England - neither of us have to like it, but there it is.
What's your basically saying is Civilisation is thought to arrive in Norway with Christianity - that seems a bit fishy in a 19th Century revisionist sort of way.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-23-2012, 01:29
Must... resist... mocking... Jesus fan boys...
you never try very hard.
Anyway, I'm not a fanboy, I'm far too violent and bloodthirsty.
I like to think of myself as God's Berserker - I end up topless often enough.
HoreTore
11-23-2012, 01:35
Cnut was a King of Norway just like he was a King of England - neither of us have to like it, but there it is.
What's your basically saying is Civilisation is thought to arrive in Norway with Christianity - that seems a bit fishy in a 19th Century revisionist sort of way.
No, the term "Kings of Norway" refers to the the dynasty of Harald Hårfagre - Knut was a foreign meddler, and irrelevant to the discussion of Norwegian kings. He's seen as a dane who had some influence for a few years, little more.
Edit: by the way, Knut is rarely mentioned in Norway, the fascination for him is very british(and possibly danish, but I wouldn't know as their language is impossible to decipher). Håkon Jarl is given as the ruler of Norway during the time Knut supposedly ruled - and that's because we were ruled by Håkon Jarl, even though he didn't have the title of King.
Kadagar_AV
11-23-2012, 01:42
you never try very hard.
Anyway, I'm not a fanboy, I'm far too violent and bloodthirsty.
I like to think of myself as God's Berserker - I end up topless often enough.
Honestly, I don't try at all. Heck, I openly despise you. It doesn't mean I don't LIKE you though!!
And dang, I wanted to be God's berserker....
So if I'm following this discussion correctly, the solution to the Isreali/Palestinian problem is Varangians?
Norwegians had iron weapons in 1500BC?
What are you smoking?
Edit: The linky I gave above says the norwegian iron age started in the year 500BC and ended in 1050AD. Again, what have you been smoking?
Oh sigh
Guys, I thought I was good at derailing threads but damn it you took the game to a whole 'nother level.
OK since we're on the subject of Norse history (which I admire very much) I have a couple of questions:
What were the earliest tribes there called? Do we have info on their origins? When was Scandinavia settled and where did the settlers come from?
Why didn't Rome conquer Scandinavia? I suppose it's like the German territories - wild, untamed forests, rugged terrain overall, nothing worth conquering (cities and the like) and a mobile bunch of people that are hard to capture and enslave or extort since they move much more easily than urban citizenry.
What would be a good translation of the Poetic Edda to read online?
I also like Elder Futhark and I actually know how to write my name in it heh.
Well, we are discussing Nordic countries...
Also, "the rest of the world" have completely different schedules for what iron age is. It's not the same in, say, England and China. For some cultures the iron age is even non-existant.
Your attempt to brush of your ignorance only furthered the proof of your ignorance.
HA busted, you shouldn't be able to read my posts, admit it you are secretly madly in love with me and have issues with properly expressing it and have to resort to poorplayed arrogance to hide it
And again, vikings did have horned helmets, not all, it wasn't common, it were just a few who ruined for the rest
Edit, looked it up and accept defeat, these helmets on display there are indeed pre-viking. The helmets are the same style so got confused
Sarmatian
11-23-2012, 11:23
So if I'm following this discussion correctly, the solution to the Isreali/Palestinian problem is Varangians?
Ok, this is officially the first time in the history of the internet that an Israel-Palestine political discussion was derailed into a discussion about Viking fashion, headwear and accessories.
C'mon guys, it's usually the other way 'round. We're gonna be the laughing stock of the tubes.
C'mon guys, it's usually the other way 'round.
No it isn't
Owwww Palywood is at it again, horrific cruelty from Israel when farmers decided to work the land in the buffer zone, they didn't know that it as been there for decades apparantly and just decided to plow desert and got shot by evil jews. Leftist people will no doubt be heartbroken and will be furiously screaming for blood, or they might, just might, can control their 'always have condemned all violence from both sides' good after the war emotions, bite on their lips, shake a bit, and call bull.
Ironside
11-23-2012, 12:57
Cnut was a King of Norway just like he was a King of England - neither of us have to like it, but there it is.
What's your basically saying is Civilisation is thought to arrive in Norway with Christianity - that seems a bit fishy in a 19th Century revisionist sort of way.
Why they keep it up has more to do with the proto-modern nations starting about that time. Christianity was clearly used for its increased organisation (for example in form of better written sources). It's most obvious in Sweden, although clear in Norway as well.
Since the Roman ages and the Dark ages (was the original name) didn't directly occur here, those names makes less sense. So you would have something like Iron age, hmhm age, Middle age, instead.
The younger iron age usually divivded into some periods as well
What were the earliest tribes there called? Do we have info on their origins? When was Scandinavia settled and where did the settlers come from?
Unknown name. The arrival is right after the ice age, starting about 14.000 years ago. Northen parts takes until 9.000 years due to the remaining ice. Germanic, although the northen parts were immigrated from the east, (what in modern day is the Sami).
Why didn't Rome conquer Scandinavia? I suppose it's like the German territories - wild, untamed forests, rugged terrain overall, nothing worth conquering (cities and the like) and a mobile bunch of people that are hard to capture and enslave or extort since they move much more easily than urban citizenry.
Pretty much. The logistical lines would've been worse as well. Had Germaina fallen to the Romans, the would probably have taken southern scandinavia as well.
What would be a good translation of the Poetic Edda to read online?
Not sure about good but I did find this (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Poetic_Edda)
So if I'm following this discussion correctly, the solution to the Isreali/Palestinian problem is Varangians?
Could do worse than Scandinavian peacekeepers. I guess that's the closest to Varangians today.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-23-2012, 21:17
No, the term "Kings of Norway" refers to the the dynasty of Harald Hårfagre - Knut was a foreign meddler, and irrelevant to the discussion of Norwegian kings. He's seen as a dane who had some influence for a few years, little more.
Edit: by the way, Knut is rarely mentioned in Norway, the fascination for him is very british(and possibly danish, but I wouldn't know as their language is impossible to decipher). Håkon Jarl is given as the ruler of Norway during the time Knut supposedly ruled - and that's because we were ruled by Håkon Jarl, even though he didn't have the title of King.
I find this interesting, because he's Danish and therefore acknowledging him has historical and cultural ramifications for you.
Still, I wish he had been more fortunate in his Sons, then England and Scotland would be Nordic Countries, not Frankish ones.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-23-2012, 21:40
Honestly, I don't try at all. Heck, I openly despise you. It doesn't mean I don't LIKE you though!!
And dang, I wanted to be God's berserker....
Oh Kad you wound me, "despise", could you just not think me a fool of Biblical proportions?
I would say you could be Odin's Berserker - but I was that too and it's overrated.
Yeah... we should talk about my Pagan phase some time (I'm not kidding, I had one).
Kadagar_AV
11-24-2012, 01:19
Oh Kad you wound me, "despise", could you just not think me a fool of Biblical proportions?
I would say you could be Odin's Berserker - but I was that too and it's overrated.
Yeah... we should talk about my Pagan phase some time (I'm not kidding, I had one).
Ok... Now this made my year I think... YOU had a PAGAN phase? That is just... awesome! And yeah, I absolutely want to hear more about that!!
Oh Kad you wound me, "despise", could you just not think me a fool of Biblical proportions?
I would say you could be Odin's Berserker - but I was that too and it's overrated.
Yeah... we should talk about my Pagan phase some time (I'm not kidding, I had one).
Vikings were much cooler when they were still pagans in my humble opinion
Kadagar_AV
11-24-2012, 06:06
Any group of people that believe the only non-combat-related way to reach heaven (or, Asgard, I suppose) is to cut open your guts, tie your bowels to a rock, and keep walking in circles around said rock until you are dead... well.. that's just hardcore brah. Hardcore.
:verycool:
It IS!!
Ok, this is officially the first time in the history of the internet that an Israel-Palestine political discussion was derailed into a discussion about Viking fashion, headwear and accessories.
C'mon guys, it's usually the other way 'round. We're gonna be the laughing stock of the tubes.
The thread is going in the right direction. Don't you see? Vikings. Horns. Odin. Valhalla. Wagner. Hitler. All roads lead to Rome, all threads lead to Hitler.
Vladimir
11-27-2012, 21:55
So if I'm following this discussion correctly, the solution to the Isreali/Palestinian problem is Varangians?
I think you have a point.
So how many Vikings live in Israel?
How many in Gaza?
And what does that tell us about who will win wearing horned helmets?
Hooahguy
11-28-2012, 00:28
So how many Vikings live in Israel?
How many in Gaza?
And what does that tell us about who will win wearing horned helmets?
Some people think Jews have horns, does that count?
HoreTore
11-28-2012, 00:44
Some people think Jews have horns, does that count?
Think? You mean they don't?
Don't let the kosher media trick you with their lies, man! Turn off the telly and read the real truth!
Some people think Jews have horns, does that count?
You file them off, don't you?
Kadagar_AV
11-28-2012, 01:55
You file them off, don't you?
To be technical about it, it is one of the menial and degrading tasks they force upon the children they kidnap.
I was always wondering why the Frankish empire didn't just march it's armies north to end the Viking threat.
Sarmatian
11-28-2012, 09:37
I don't know about Franks but I'd be scared of Jew Vikings wearing horned helmets while singing Wagner.
Jews singing Wagner?
Heh.
Jews singing Wagner?
Heh.
Almost, 'dive of the valkyre'
Hooahguy
11-28-2012, 15:17
To be technical about it, it is one of the menial and degrading tasks they force upon the children they kidnap.
Then we kill them and use their blood to make our Matzah. Christian boy blood is yummy.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-28-2012, 15:33
I was always wondering why the Frankish empire didn't just march it's armies north to end the Viking threat.
They were too afraid - I'm being serious.
Then we kill them and use their blood to make our Matzah. Christian boy blood is yummy.
...by tying the boy between four horses and pulling him apart, if I recall correctly.
Yeah - you think modern Antisemitism is bad?
HoreTore
11-28-2012, 15:53
The jews took boys?
Makes sense, as the masons took blonde christian girls, killed them, stuffed them in barrels and sold 'em to the turks...
Good to see both sexes being taken care of!
Tellos Athenaios
11-28-2012, 17:14
They were too afraid - I'm being serious.
Well partly. Let's not overlook the Frankish inclination for infighting.
Also, part of why the Vikings made it big is that the Franks had conveniently removed/crushed their only major obstacle: the Saxons and their allies.
Then again, one could say that the Franks traded Frisian/Saxon piracy for the occasional Viking rape and a new shiny mercenary force (Normans).
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.