Printable View
When I was a kid I used to read a lot of the old Germanian sagas. If memory serves they play exactly in the time of the BI. Some are even semi pagan semi Christian.
My question is: Which tales do you know? What are they about? And what do we learn about the Barbarians?
My favourite is outside the timeframe of BI.
The Jomsvikings Saga is quite a read. Bloody and all. But mainly it lets you understand the relationship between the Danish king and the Jomsvikings (how he cheats them).
How about Egil Skallagrimssons saga, also out of timeframe but immensly good reading.
Maybe some of you also met Egil in mtw-vi?? At least I saw him in there many times, taking heads of everyone who oppose him, sending them to valhalla :duel: :charge:
What can you learn from the sagas? Well usually historians and students of the sagas are agreeing upon that the actual intrigues of the sagas should be handled with great care, for instance the jomsvikings mentioned above are not really believed to have existed but its hard to write them off aswell. Descriptions of social life and normal events in the sagas are on the other hand viewed upon as good information (basically because there would be no reason to make such things up and they can be found in many of the sagas).
For instance we can come to the conclusion from the sagas that sons from wealthy or important families often went abroad paying visit to the courts in other countries and spending time there. An early form of peregrination one could call it.
Kalle
I'm starting Beowulf for English class now. Should be a lot better than the Greek play we read and all those boring English and American "literature" we had to read.
Ahhh Beowulf, one of the finest of English Hero's.
hehehe...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalle
I actually had them as a subject for my yearspaper (due summer 2004).
The results were interesting. Jomsborg as it is described didn't exist, but you can backtrack the name. Jomsborg-Hynnisburgh-Julin (Jumne)-Wolin...
This makes great sense as the town of Wolin (I actually went there, perfect habour for raiders) was not only a warriortown of great fame (resisted the Poles for a good while alone), but in the time just prior to the Saga the town suddenly saw a great influx of taller people and lots of Nordic items, Danish in particular. The period after the Saga's events saw a rapid decline in these artifacts, and in fact the town was burnt down on three seperate occations by Danish kings for its depredations on the Danish heartlands.
This alone indicates that Danish warriors took up residence in Wolin at the time of the Saga, which also coincides with the next generation of local warriors after the defeat to Poland (somehow the town came under Danish control it seems). Then the battle of Hjørungevåg happened (well around that time) and the power of Wolin declined sharply and it was forced to attack closer to home, meaning Denmark. Apparently the Danish warriors were gone and only locals remained.
The Saga and Saxo's work are remarkably similar, and they are written about the same time. So obviously there was an older 'saga' they drew on, because the step back to Anders Sunesen and Adam of Bremen is too steep (though the line is clear). That lost work is the basics for the Saga as we know it. Before that the town of Wolin was 'merely' allied to Denmark or had a Danish garrison of very capable warriors. It could even have been a royal town as the kings during its accendance seemed to have a special relationship with it, one traveling there to die and another keeping in close contact with them.
The point:
Jomsvikings as Jomsvikings is not correct, but powerful and specifically feared vikings from the town of what seems to be known as Julin-Jumne to the Norse, is very much a reality. The history of the town and the strength of its warriors gave rise to a heroic saga as it had some clearlyfelt impact all the way to Norway. Not bad for a single town.
Yup, who lives in Scandinavia. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
If you want read weird Heroic Epos,read Finlands National epos Kalevala.Maybe the best word to describe it is original.~;)
I rather fond of the Irish myths: Chuculain, Tuatha Dé Danann, ect. And the Norse sagas and myths. The heroes and gods of the north are always a good read.
What Greek play? And what English and American authors are we talking about? Because there is some damn fine English and American literature around, some of Shakespere's works (I can't stand Othello, but 12th Night is a great play), Hemmingway, London, Wilde, Kerouac, ect.Quote:
Should be a lot better than the Greek play we read and all those boring English and American "literature" we had to read.
Well, I do like some of Shakespeares stuff, but we've only read Romeo and Juliuet, which is boring to me. And the Greek play was Oedipus the King... ok, but sort of boring, and I felt Oedipus was an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBob
As for English and American stuff, we never really read anything from London, Hemmingway (except for Old Man in the Sea), Kerouac or interesting like that. I did like Huck Finn, but most of the stuff is a snooze fest. And its not like I hate books, I read a lot.
Actually, I don't remember in which area Beowulf is written to have lived. He travelled to...Jutland, right? It's been too long.
Beowulf is a good story, a great one, even. The same goes for most of the Celtic and Germanic mythologies, and Gilgamesh as well. I own one epic myself: Blin' Hary's Wallace, an epic telling of the exploits of Scotland's national hero, William Wallace. Of course, it's a more updated version than the one written in the 1400s, but the translator spared no detail, keeping the descriptions of gore within the text. Hardly graphic by today's visual standards, but it sure makes the Wallace seem much more big and badass after reading how he'd just torn some Saxon's lungs out.
I grew up with the tales of Rustam the Champion. Ferdowsi’s epic and all that. Back then I found it a bit boring, but now I love it. ~D
Rustam is the Iranian hero with Lion's armor, or something like that, correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
Indeed. We sure could use the old boy these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
I was going to GAHxplode unless one would mention Shahnameh after all these posts. :2thumbsup:
And still nobody talked Tolkien. ~:handball:
.
And perhaps also the Dede Korkut? ~:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
The main character of Kalevala Väinämöinen was intresting fellow.He was sourcerer,and so ugly that the young woman called Aino whom Väinämöinen fall in love with drowned herself becouse she didnt want to marry him.My kind of Hero.:bounce:
Tolkien's works are considered a saga? In that case, its my favorite one. I love it. Great stuff. Rohhirrim are deffiently the most interesting. Not the nicest fellows, but certaintly amongst the bravest, and anyone who loves horses gets my vote.
And what does Shahnameh mean? King what?
.
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
Indeed. Deli Dumrul is my favourite. ~;)
.
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Shahnameh (شهنامه): The book of kings. Starting from the creation of man, coming to the end of the Sasanids. 99% legendary (with kings ruling for n-thousand years, Rostem singlehandedly destroying an army of 30,000[?] etc.) and partly transported from Vedic sources (the story of Dahhak) but most fun reading, especially in Firdowsi's pen (which ingeniously camouflages the Zaraostrianist backbone with a fake Islamic flavour ~;)), even beneath a dry translation. ~:)
Why shouldn't Tolkien be considered saga? Does it have to be of anonymous origin? IMO no. Traditional sagas were also artwork in their origin, later mutating through multiple anonymous hands. In Tolkien's case, the process is backwards (traditional material stylized by an artist) not much unlike the Shahnameh or Kalavela. ~;)
.
Tolkien should not be considered saga because it is not a saga, Tolkien was a fantasywriter who built his work on old myths and sagas.Quote:
Why shouldn't Tolkien be considered saga? Does it have to be of anonymous origin? IMO no. Traditional sagas were also artwork in their origin, later mutating through multiple anonymous hands. In Tolkien's case, the process is backwards (traditional material stylized by an artist) not much unlike the Shahnameh or Kalavela.
A saga may well have historical truth in it (Jomsvikings, Egil Skallagrimsson) Tolkien is fantasy and should be discussed somewhere else. (dont get me wrong, I love Tolkiens work)
Kalle
20 replys but no answers to my questions ~;p
Here is one of my favorites. It is the saga of Walther and Hildegung. Maybe you know it. I right it out of my memory, but I guess that is the way sagas should be told ~;)
Saga of Walther and Hildegund
The king of the Hun, Etzel (=Attila) started a new invasion in Europe. He attacked the Franks, Burgunds and Aquitanians. None dared to fight him. So they offered him gold and hostages: Walther the son of the Aquitanian king, Hildegund the daughter of the Burgund king. Gunter, the son of the Frank king was too young to be hostage; so the Frank king gave the son of one of his noblemen, Hagen von Tronje.
Etzel was pleased from the result of his campaign. He ordered to educate the three hostages as if they were his own children.
When they were grown, Walther and Hagen were strong fighters in the army of Etzel. Walther, especially, excelled at bravery and gained a leading position in the army of the Huns. Hildegund herself became caretaker of Etzel’s treasure.
Although all three were respected persons at the king’s court they all were homesick. Hagen took the first opportunity and run away. Etzel was very angry about this and his wife told him: Beware that Walther will run away too. He is too important for our army. Give him a wife. That will pin him down. So the king called Walther and told him that he wanted to award him for his deeds. He told him that he could take any girl he wants to become his wife. Walther replied that this is a very generous offer. However having a wife he would not be able to serve his king on the battle field the way he wants it to. So Etzel forbeared from his offer and told his wife: Walther is ours forever.
However, Walther had already plans to run away and he agreed with Hildegund to take her with him. After a big victory party when all the Hun warriors were drunk they run away with a horse loaded with gold. When Etzel realized this he called his warriors and promised a reward for those who bring back Walther. But the warriors knew Walther and the way he fought and none tried to win the price.
On their way home Walther and Hildegund finally reached the Rhine. They were happy because they thought they were finally safe. They crossed the river and Walther paid the ferryman with two fishes he had angled before in the Danube. The ferrymen saw that the fishes were not from local waters and sold them to the cook of King Gunter.
Gunter was curious and asked where the fishes came from. The ferryman told that he received them from a foreign warrior who was accompanied by a lady and a horse cargo of gold. Gunter asked his men if they knew who this stranger could be. Hagen replied: Good news, my king, this must be Walther my good friend from the time at Etzels court. Gunter said: So this is gold from Etzel’s treasure. Excellent! So finally a part of the gold my father had to pay is coming back. Hagen replied: Gunter, it is much easier to want the gold than to take it away from Walther. Gunter became furious and told Hagen: If you are scared we will do it without you! He left with a dozen of his men. Hagen followed them reluctantly.
They met Walther at the Wasgenstein, where they halted. This is a narrow path in the middle of a forrest. At both sides there are rocks so only two men can walk side by side. Gunter demanded on Walther for the gold and Hildegund. Walter offered him some gold but Gunter did not accept. So the fighting began. As only two men of Gunter could attack at one time Walter was able to kill all men. Hagen was shocked to see his comrades die. One of the dead was nephew. When the king saw that all of his men were dead he asked Hagen to attack Walther. Hagen realized that he had to keep the loyalty to the king. He promised to fight if could do it his way and the king would join the fight too. Gunter agreed.
Hagen and Gunter retreated and Walther and Hildegund pushed along. But as soon as they had left the forest they were attacked by the two men again. After a tough fight Walther managed to hurt Gunter’s leg. The next strike would have killed Gunter but Hagen jumped in between and Walther’s sword hit his helmet. The blade broke Hagen used the chance that Walther had lost his sword and chopped off Walther’s right hand. Walter managed to pull his short sword with his left and pulled it across Hagen’s face. Hagen lost one eye and six teeth.
After this the battle was over. Hildegund dressed the wounds, the men became friends.
Uhhh...
My understanding was that Beowulf was English and his story was written in old English. I am correct aren't I?
Well, this is from what I understand. It was an Anglo Saxon story about when they were still in the Netherlands (Denmark, and wherever the Geots are from). It was orginally pagan, but then monks wrote it down and Christianized it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
But it all takes place in mainly I think Denmark, and the surrounding area.
Mouza, thanks for clearning that up. I knew of Rustam from my reading of books about Iran miliatry traditions, and one book mentioned some art work that looked like his supposedly did.
Sagas are fantasy. With monsters, magic swords, maidens in distress, compressed timescales for dramatic events etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalle
Just like Tolkiens work they have a historical basis on which the fiction is staged.
.
No offense taken or intended Kalle but I think exactly like Pape in this saga/fantasy matter. ~:) The difference between -say- Niebelungenlied or Jomsviking and Tolkien or Firdowsi is that simply we know who the author is in the latters. :bow:
.
I diasagree! I do not say that those sagas are correct history. But they do have a true core. I think that they give a lot of additional information.
Two examples of a different time and area:
You have the tales of Homer and in fact you could find Troja according to the stories. You also have the Bible which is also historical tradition.
Indeed a saga is a sort of folklore, it doesn't have to be historic, but will most often contain parts of that.
Tolkien presents no folklore, merely a good story.
Yes! Do you know the saga of Wieland? Made the first full metal plane! The father of German engineering! Much better than Daedalus and icarus. ~;)
No offense is taken by me, but I still hold my statement for true which it also is. The islandic sagas are actual historical sources in many cases. Tolkien is fantasy and fantasy and saga are not same thing. Neither is myth and saga same thing.
Kalle
One more aspect that is often part of a saga, but isn't in Tolkiens works. The 'common identity' aspect. Sagas are meant to give people a feeling of unity, that THIS is their history, not somebody else. Sagas are meant to be believed as facts or at least as close to facts.
Tolkien made no such aspirations... He just made a great story of people in times of distress.
What do you mean exactly by Heroic Saga ? If don't know if they could be considered as such, but the Arthurian myth and the Tale of Roland kinda sound and taste as heroic sagas.
Did you know that the roots of the Nibelungen saga go back to 5th century? That means they are very close to the BI. I think it is a very interesting source about the time.
There are two things I do not understand:
1. There are no Romans in this saga.
2. The describtion of the Huns and their leader Attila is very positive, compared to the other historical sources.
Tolkien provides everything a SAG deos, it solidifies a people under one vision, it has many poems and tales interwoven.
The entire story of Gondor vs Morgoth is based on an ancient Gothic tale about the evil Black Goth aka Morgoth versus some eastern Germanic tribe.
Then theres the whole Anglo-Saxon Mythology eg the tree of Gondor represents the hewn tree of Wessex which was only "re-joined" once the true blood of Wessex was again sitting on the throne (Henry the 1sts wife and therefore his son). Thats identical to the tale of Aragorn.
.
It's been like five weeks since I ordered the books but they haven't arrived yet. ~:mecry: Waiting for the six week period the dealers give complete.
.
Of course, many Germanics were allied with Atilla. His army and campaigns were more Germanic in style than nomadic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
As kids, we also heard stories of Rustam and Sohrab from our mother/grandmothers. Rustam ends up killing his son Sohrab, only later to find out that he was his son.
Most of the characters in the Shahnamah are supposed to be from the Parthian period - mabye that is why all the heroes are knights clad in armor.
No, I think you need to read more about what Tolkein was trying to achieve. He was trying to fill the verbal history gaps in the Englisn (Saxon) History left by the Norman invasion. His aim was to create a tale that mended this history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Reading the Welsh tales of Arthur and their equivalent of elves and one can see some of the inspiratons for Tolkeins work.
Nor to I agree with the idea that Sagas are factual. If they are factual then RTW, Braveheart and Star Wars are history lessons.
Yes they are oral history, but they are not facts. They use facts to make the story more believable. But I do believe the tellers of these stories just like our RTW developers scarificed reality for drama and just like our RTW marketers they scarificed compexitiy for ease of understanding.
Pape,
You are wrong. I met Siegfried in the Dragon Bar last night and he confirmed that everything is really true!
:medievalcheers:
The fact is that Tolkien creates a universe, he doesn't put the setting in Saxon England. He does base his various groups and info on what he could find in English history, but he shakes it together in a totally different mix. It has nothing to do with the real sagas/myths/legendary stories. In that case I could go on to claim that Star Wars is a saga too, but it is not. It is a story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Sagas are not factual, always (some are to an extent), but they are meant to be percieved as factual, that was what I tried to convey when I wrote:
I stress 'believed'. It is of little influence if they are in fact true or not.Quote:
Sagas are meant to be believed as facts or at least as close to facts.
Hmmm does this Make Star Trek a Saga because of the Trekkies? :klingon: :vulcan: :hide:
I've never really read the nordic/saxon Sagas. I love the books by countess Markeivcz on the Irish Celts and Tuatha de Danann. They're basically the oral tradition written down and translated. Very much mythical though.
For something a little more factual, you should try the various medieval chronicles. They're far from the truth in many cases but enjoyable, in a simialar vein to the sagas.