Norway?

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

to be short: i don't think so....but i could be wrong

[René Artois]

Despite the lack of English representation at Rome, Pope Alexander declared that William’s invasion was a legitimate crusade, and gave Lanfranc’s emessary a papal banner and a ring bearing a hair of St. Peter

http://medievalhistory.suite101.com/...orman_invasion
Not sure how accurate it is though.

[hammy the hamster]

I think they (the church) used the term "crusade" to encourage William to do what they want, it was a better term to use over "you fighting a war to kill the church's enemies". As crusade being a defenition of holy war then no because Edward the Confessor who was the King before Harold Godwin was very religious and spent the last years of his life building a cathedral (i forgete which). Added to which they normans were not really driving out a pagan or heathen religion but simply conquering for personal gain.

[René Artois]

Yes. I think the "crusade" part of the war was more of a facade that William used to spur himself on to go through with the invasion. However it is still technically a crusade because it was as legitimate as any other crusade and the normans were fighting against an excommunicated king.

[DaVinci]

This "crusade" was of course a papal and William's personal exploit, no question imo.

Of course, the Anglo-Saxons were in this timeframe absolutely firm christian believers. Latest since Alfred the Great (9th cent) the christian church in England was heavily supported by these Saxons, and the pagan Dane Law found its end in this timeframe on the isles.

The "crusade"-name was a ridiculous alibi, nothing else in my eyes, for climbing onto the English throne, which was Duke William I of Normandy promised earlier on by the pope or rather Edward, the former King of England with the approval of the pope. William promised the pope to be his vasall, afaik, so he got what he wanted, a free letter to slaughter other Christians, he also just claimed, that Harold has just not the right by law to call himself King of England, of course the pope liked that, because Harold refused to ask the pope or the churchmen. This to my knowledge now without to look for sources ... but i read the whole story (and in its details) somewhere in the past.

Anyway, the question of "crusade" ... when and from whom done first, what shall this mean overall for the mod design?
It's eventually an interesting semi-academical question/discussion worth, but has at least no real meaning for the mod development ... the first real official (and as such meant and legitimated to kill any "infidel") crusade in the common known sense was called out by pope Urban in Clermont at 1095. And i would like to see the real source where pope Alexander spoke of a crusade (in the common sense) against the Saxon king, even if he was excommunicated, i understand this rather as punishment of a "fallen" christian in the eyes of a damn evil pope and a very ambitious Norman duke ...lol. And btw., the Reconquista was promoted by the popes, and that started far earlier already.

But, we are here at least on-topic again in regard of the Chiv subforum purpose ... as well any comments by megaknut about the Norwegian medieval history is on-topic in this regard. So if you guys avoid further off-topic posts, then keep it up. Otherwise i'll start to simply delete such off-posts with all descretion, i mean every post that contains personal fighting

[megaknut]

The word king is not I think what it meant in the later period. A person annointed by god to rule a sovereign country. An idea of kingship based on christianity. Norway in this time(according to Snorre) had 3 Kings(maybe 2).
Althoug it is correct to say he was king of Norway it should be in this context.
I must say the story as told by Snorre is very intriguing. I recommend to everyone.

Sigurd shared his throne with his two brothers at first, thought from 1123 he was king alone. And yes, he was considered a KING, just as queen elizabeth or King Harald is queen and king today of their respective countries.

[megaknut]

..

Dainci is right, and when talking about history...i NEVER believe ANYTHING i read, until all the sources say the same, or if i can put all the sources in such a way they make sense..

Well, all sources indicate that King Sigurd was regarded as a KING even thought sharing the throne with his brothers, until later to become the sole king for a period.
Definition of king found online:
King(n): a male sovereign; ruler of a kingdom

King sigurd was ruler of Norway, even thought not ruler alone, he was yet ruler og Norway, meaning it is completely right to call him the first crusading european king.

...as well any comments by megaknut about the Norwegian medieval history is on-topic in this regard...

has my comments ever been on the brink of being off-topic?

[Haakon]

Sounds interesting.

But i'm with Athenogoras here: I hope everybody has a clue in how far written words had an impact in the middleage. Only very few people were capable to write and to read! It is very questionable (always) what's true and what's not* ... even today

*every serious historian considers this fact. To say here in this thread, it was this and that way is a "bit" ridiculous, until you have an unquestionable evidence, and this might be very hard to bring up, eh? Or you bring up here several reliable sources. Not meant is here Athenogoras (he as well hinted already the question of a truth and its interpretation), but all other who make claims in this thread that aren't accepted knowledge-bases by the official and common accepted written history

This is no offence to anybody here, just a hint, how much power and might written words had especially in the middleage (and earlier and later of course, too).
This doesn't mean, that i for example do not believe there was Sigurd, the crusading Norse, the details and interpretation could be the point of an academical discussion.

All sources from back then were bought by kings and noble lords as you no doubt know. If there are tales of battles as an example, the rule of thumb is that if it is confirmed by other sources it's regarded to be true. However certain data such as amount of troops and so on, raw data, seems to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Snorre is considered to be the no.1 source for medieval Scandinavia, and lots of the writings are confirmed in lets say the anglo-saxon chronicle compiled by king alfred. It seems people take the christian chronicles for granted, yet at the same time question the pagan ones, which I find a bit odd to say the least. If you are to question the norse one you might as well write off 50% of the mainland european ones.

(according to Snorre) had 3 Kings(maybe 2).

Shared the power with two family members, something not uncommon in Norway as the only other option would be civil war. And if you read up on Norwegian history, you will see that the fight for the Norwegian throne was basically a team-deathmatch/capture the flag type of struggle. The other two later died of dubious reasons (not uncommon either)

[Athenogoras]

And if you read up on Norwegian history, you will see that the fight for the Norwegian throne was basically a team-deathmatch/capture the flag type of struggle.

That was easy to guess. That is a feuture of all monarchys wielding true power. World history is peppered with stories like this. Just recently the last king of Nepal(Gyanendra I think) slaughtered a large part of his kin. Not to mention the one in Saudiarabia.

It seems people take the christian chronicles for granted, yet at the same time question the pagan ones

Snorre lived from ca 1178-1241. I would say the entire ruling class of Scandinavia was christian at this time, including Snorre. Although his prose is not of a religious style. And I am 110% sure that DaVinci isn´t biased against pagan sources.
And Snorre is probably the best secondary written source we have of late pagan early christian scandinavia. Something of a scandinavian Herodotus(greek ancient chronicler)

[Haakon]

Snorre lived from ca 1178-1241. I would say the entire ruling class of Scandinavia was christian at this time, including Snorre. Although his prose is not of a religious style. And I am 110% sure that DaVinci isn´t biased against pagan sources.
And Snorre is probably the best secondary written source we have of late pagan early christian scandinavia. Something of a scandinavian Herodotus(greek ancient chronicler)

Lots of Heimskringla includes pagan Norway, not just the 'christianisation' (is that a word?) thats what I ment, perhaps lost in translation on my behalf. Sevral Norwegian kings fought pagan lords for centuries, and I wouldnt say that Norway was fully chrisitian for sevral centuries later. One visual example is the old stave chrurches with dragons head on them, clear pagan symbols.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ke,_vinter.JPG

[megaknut]

Actually, i second athengoras in this latter posts.

[Haakon]

Actually, i second athengoras in this latter posts.

DO elaborate.


there are 800 years old churches in Norway with pagan symbols. To claim that norway was Christian during snorre is not accurate.

[Norge]

Danes invaded and settled in England and Northern Germany. Norway was just being Norway as far as I know, which gives the Danes more impact.

Woah! Better read up on your history.

[Athenogoras]

there are 800 years old churches in Norway with pagan symbols.

Usually the churches were built where former holy places lay. Early missionaries often included "pagan" symbols. I would guess to symbolize continuity to make it easiser to integrate people to the new faith. There are many cases with runic stones inside churches in Sweden. Are you saying that the people who ordered the church were pagan?
Old symbols die hard and their meaning change with time. I dont think they saw dragons as pagan symbols but as art who where commonly used in this time.

To claim that norway was Christian during snorre is not accurate.

I did claim that the ruling class was christian(rich landlords, noblemen)And by christian I mean baptized and observing the rituals of christianity.

[megaknut]

DO elaborate.


there are 800 years old churches in Norway with pagan symbols. To claim that norway was Christian during snorre is not accurate.

I am not saying NORWAY was. I am seconding athengoras when he is saying that the ruling class was christian, as well as snorre. Norway, on the other hand took a long time to become fully christianed, and even when all the pagan symbols and worshipping places were torn down, people still worshipped the old gods.

[Sun Devil]

Yesterday, 03:22 PM / Re: Norway?

Today, 03:22 PM / Re: Norway?

Just felt like pointing out this phenomena by megaknut.

[megaknut]

Just felt like pointing out this phenomena by megaknut.

Noooes, you just ruined everthing. Im timing my posts to create the heaviest argumental power possible, but now..it won't work.

[Haakon]

Usually the churches were built where former holy places lay. Early missionaries often included "pagan" symbols. I would guess to symbolize continuity to make it easiser to integrate people to the new faith. There are many cases with runic stones inside churches in Sweden. Are you saying that the people who ordered the church were pagan?

Well that all depends on what the runes say doesnt it? Sure the churches were built on former pagan places of worship, after thos eplaces had been destroyed. The builders added the dragons to protect from evil, the nobels were christians no doubt, but it took centuries before all your average joe's were christian.

Old symbols die hard and their meaning change with time. I dont think they saw dragons as pagan symbols but as art who where commonly used in this time.

No dragons were protecting from evil spirits. This is a well known fact.

I did claim that the ruling class was christian(rich landlords, noblemen)And by christian I mean baptized and observing the rituals of christianity.

I agree with this.

I am not saying NORWAY was. I am seconding athengoras when he is saying that the ruling class was christian, as well as snorre. Norway, on the other hand took a long time to become fully christianed, and even when all the pagan symbols and worshipping places were torn down, people still worshipped the old gods.

Agreed.

[megaknut]

I feel ashamed watching the how the results of this discussion is turning out. First we have a narly brit going off topic deluxe, then...all of a sudden in the thread where arguements and disagreements have been floating across the room like an overfilled bathtub(with live ducks), theres agreement. Everyone is chipping a piece of their arguement, finding reasonable "correctness" in the other people's arguement. I shed a tear tonight.

[megaknut]

Old symbols die hard and their meaning change with time. I dont think they saw dragons as pagan symbols but as art who where commonly used in this time.

No dragons were protecting from evil spirits. This is a well known fact.

(yes!!!) I strongly disagree. What you are stating is an utter lie. By stating something is an "well known" fact without it being a well known fact you are insulting and tearing down the most basic and sacred foundations of history and you should along with rapists and murderers be trailed for your lack of righteousness and all the harm caused on society.

Claiming that dragons was just a symbol used to protect people from evil spirits is a lie. Does not christianity denounce any offerings, worship of ANY kind to any god, animal or similiar? Does Christianity not denounce the belief of trickery, magic and fairytale animals. Yes it does, atleast it did at that time(im not going to state something here in fear of some new age nationalsocialistic jewish mosque church declearing me a hypocrit)

In my own hometown vikings and latter inhabitants believed there lived a DRAGON in the lake. This was a widely popular belief, even when my town(HAMAR) became seat of the bishop and large cathedral was raised there.
People offered goats and lambs to the dragon, fearing that it might devour them all. They also believed that it was out there, in the lake as a fairytale monster.

SO! Have we not found atleast 2 things that go against the "SOLELY" symbolic protection use of the dragon? yes, we have.
As pagan were considered anything astray from God's path the dragon use was therefore of pagan relation meaning your statement is false.

Its on again.