Quote Originally Posted by Watchman
Eh, it's more the "old school empire" thing - it rarely mattered much for the common people who exactly their overlords were. More often than not much of the extant power structure remained in place, quite simply because it was far more convenient for everyone involved to retain it under a different master than go about trying to supplant it with an imported one (which attempt would have been quaranteed to cause trouble with the existing power groups, and tended not sit all that well with the commoners either who tended to prefer an aristocracy they had at least grown accustomed to to some weird foreigners who had no idea of local traditions and practices). Or as it has been summed up, "for the peasants it mattered naught had the mandarins conversed among themselves in French rather than Chinese" or something to that effect.
Really, there were very few differences between ancient conquest and more recent colonisation. I seriously doubt the commoners were indifferent to who ruled them; more likely, they didn't know how to write so they haven't left us a trace of their feelings and modern historians decided they mustn't have had any. In fact, we do have some traces of the common people's opinions, in cases where there behaviour became extreme, either revolting and violently resisting conquest, or else welcoming the conquerors as liberators; but in any case their reaction would have been conditioned largely by their feelings towards the existing rulers of their land, and hwo these were treated by the conquerors. If a very popular ruler was displaced, his peopel were likely to rally around him (or his heirs) and rebel against the conquerors as soon as they got an opportunity to do so. If a popular dynasty was exterminated, the new rulers would need generations to live down their reputation as heinous criminals. On the other hand, replacing a disliked ruler could make the conqueror quite popular.

Also, on the topic of colonisation and conquest being the same throughout history, Rani Lakshmi Bai (revolted against British rule 1857CE), is pretty much the same thing as Boudicca (revolted against Roman rule, 61CE); granted the Victorians were less barbaric than the Romans and Lakshmi Bai rode a horse rather than a chariot, but the causes of the revolt were the same.

Sakkura: well, maybe it's impossible to make Danish history look good
But I'm sure your teachers presented it as more bad luck or hopeless odds, rather than the Danes being incompetent, evil, and utterly deserving of what they got.