Why were the Vikings houses primitive while being millitary advanced?

Why were the Vikings houses primitive while being millitary advanced?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Programme
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danelaw
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard
youtube.com/watch?v=RuCnZClWwpQ
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_invasions_of_Europe
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_countries
sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romerska_kejsardömet
youtube.com/watch?v=414mrPgK5Yk
youtube.com/watch?v=S0zGo122vMY
youtube.com/watch?v=OB8iGXyLoNY
lansstyrelsen.se/Halland/Sv/lantbruk-och-landsbygd/Radgivning-kurser/natur-och-kulturvarden/lar-kanna-din-by/halmstad/kvibille/Pages/default.aspx
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

We don't prefer commie blocks

Because killing shit is way more fun than building it

Idk that looks comfy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Programme

>Vikings
>military advanced

If by 'military advanced' you mean 'able to kill barely armed farmers' then you're correct. The vikings got BTFO by pretty much every single proper army they encountered.

>military advanced housing
Go on...

cold as fuck so everyone had to sleep in the same room to save energy costs on firewood. Not everyone evolved in a shrub step wasteland moshie

But Vikings were farmers dude

Vikings weren't professional soldiers, not even close. They were raiders and pillagers. Any time they faced a real army they ran away. That's why their houses are so shit, because if they had to flee a real army they didn't leave much behind.

Haha yeah totally XDDD Praise kek

That's a terrible design. If they had a cold day with no wind, the whole place would be full of smoke. Also, all the heat would rise into the roof cavity.

>vikings
>militarily advanced
What?

They used wood as a primary building material. There is a theory that more complex architecture that may have existed simply didn't survive the way stone did. Hence, there is just no evidence of a more advanced society.

They obviously excelled in areas of sea exploration and were literate in the runic language, and even had a written language. They didn't have papyrus, however they used wax boars.

And we still use wood, because it's the best.

>jew spotted

everybody always shits on ancient scaandis for living in hut muts but if you pay attention you can see planed boards, which makes it stable and allows building upward. most mud tribes never got past using sticks and had hard times constructing watch towers and things like that.

neither were the houses primitive (except where building material was scarce, like Iceland) nor were they militarily advanced. they usually lived in small groups and small groups don't build large stone structures.

what is really more primitive about that than any other european shithole from the same time period
that roof has pretty good craftsmanship and you wouldn't think anything of it if not for the natural logs used in the construction

They weren't primitive. They were as advanced as any other houses in Europe, if not moreso. The norse were expert craftsmen and carpenters, which is evident when you look at stave churches and longboats.
The problem is that none of them were preserved, unlike in ancient Mediterranean civilizations, because they were made of wood. Wood is plentiful in the north, and insulates better than stone, but it doesn't last for a thousand years like stone does.

Funnily enough we don't have many preserved viking boats while we do know they were skilled boat builders.

Pretty-much same goes for wooden halls.

Also if you spent years a time away on boats raping an pillaging with your wife at home you might grow to expect that sort of housing.

>They were as advanced as any other houses in Europe, if not moreso
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
perhaps only among the houses of the peasantry

>simplicity in design
>renewable source material
>rapid construction
>adequate for the climate
>more time spent perfecting metallurgy, warfare training and tactics

/thread

The first stave churches started popping up just a few decades after the viking age ended, so we do have examples of what their architecture was like.

>we
No sweetie, modern Swedes bare zero resemblance to vikings.

I could use all those same justifications for african straw and mudhuts

probably, is that supposed to mean something?

aesthetic as fk

Africans arent really known for their metallurgy, warfare and tactics.

>Why were the Vikings houses primitive while being millitary advanced?

Many raids, much infighting, so combat tactics, wow.

doge.tiff

neither were the shit chucking finno-ugric tribals long subsumed by superior races and nations that you descend from, but here we are

1 post by this ID
>1 post by this ID
1 post by this ID
>1 post by this ID
1 post by this ID
>1 post by this ID
1 post by this ID
>1 post by this ID

Fuck your flag

They sailed to coastal villages, pillaged and turned their boats over and lived in them, until they could build new boats.
They didn't expect to live in them long just long enough to get more supplies and loot.
Then they'd go sailing again.

That house isn't that primitive mate. What do you think would happen to your houses if you got 3 feet of thick snow in a day? What do you think would happen to that house?

>The vikings got BTFO by pretty much every single proper army they encountered.
Simply not true
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danelaw
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard

It's an upside down boat you fucking kike. The vikings were sailors, not fucking farmers. Go fuck yourself, Chaim. Fucking jew

>finno-ugics
>not known for their warfare.

WE
WUZ
VIKAAAAANGS

Why do you consider that primitive?

>perhaps only among the houses of the peasantry
You can't compare pleb houses in the north to stone temples, churches and castles built by thousands of workers in the south

exactly this

>inb4 "Africans didn't have access to forging and complex warfare strategy"
in actuality, these two things are pretty much the only things that made them advanced to any degree. they only knew how to make tools/weapons of war and how to wage war.

Recreation of old Western African smelting/smithing methods: youtube.com/watch?v=RuCnZClWwpQ

Fun fact, Roman empire is almost the same size as the North.

Northmen population: around 300k
Roman Empire
60 Million

And that's only the North, not counting "Germania"

For the environment they were in and the resources they had Viking structures worked great.

WE WUZ KHANS

Does Scandinavia have easily accessible and transportable building stone or material for bricks? And is it possible to get the ingredients for concrete like the Romans could?

Stave churches and boatbuilding aside, sandniggers were building appartment complexes some 1500 years before this with plumbing and running water. The craftsmanship involved in the stave churches was high level, but not as high as the japanese.

>millitary advanced?
Scholo, they were afraid to invade Finland because they feared our witches who ate shrooms and tripped dick and balls out in forests
Our national pride

Same size?

The Normans only conquered England because they left behind their original style of warfare in favour of a combined arms approach.
Varangian Guard were great warriors, but they worked as part of the Byzantine army.

Like it or not Sven, the only time your military was top notch was in the 17th century, and that didn't last long.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_invasions_of_Europe
We wuz khans.

>they used wax boars

what?

What do you mean by primitive? Wooden houses similar to the ones in the image were used for a long time in Scandinavia. 100 years ago, wood houses with earthen floors were still relatively common in Sweden. Even modern Swedish housing isn't too different (outside of the cities) other than plumbing, electricity, better insulation etc. Sweden is very sparsely populated and because of this plumbing wasn't really necessary until the urbanization of the 19th century. Wood was abundant and could readily be used to heat houses, so there was never a reason to build fancy expensive solutions like hypocausts. The only old stone structures that you will find in Scandinavia are burial places (and churches which came much later of course).

I don't know if it's correct to say the vikings were militarily advanced either. They had ships, weaponry etc that was impressive because of the small population size, but all in all the viking ships were hardly more impressive in terms of engineering than even phoenician ships. Only the most suitable men went on raids, and they chose their targets well. This is probably how they could wreak so much havoc while being so few and being relatively primitive.

Because we were the coolest warriors ever

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_countries
Nordic countries:
3,425,804 km2

sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romerska_kejsardömet
Roman Empire:
2 750 000 km2 (25 B.C.),
4 200 000 km2 (50),
5 000 000 km2 (117),
4 400 000 km2 (390) km2


Not even including Germania.

He meant wax tablets, like the ones the Romans were using to write stuff.

Pretty comfy

Ever tried to heat a fucking palace? They did build everything out of wood, bwcause it was cheaper to heat in the fucking cold.

If you´ve ever been inside one of these badboys, you´d know exactly how fucking comfy they are

>that pic

what a mess

This is true for most of civilisation. Historians even think that the Greeks made Doric and Ionic pillars from wood for ages before they started working with stone. It makes you wonder how much history we haven't preserved.

We could have been happily using wood for 30k+ years and have no records of it, until we decided to start building with stone. It could even be more likely that Mesopotamia is one of the earliest places where stone was used simply because they never had wood. Entire civilizations could have risen and fallen and we may never know.

Just like thinking about knights in Medieval times who probably found a dinosaur bone and claimed they killed a dragon or some bullshit. Or all the wildlife we wiped out during Pax Britannica.

But how much of that is mountains and uninhabitable

There's absolutely nothing wrong with Insula, the plebs are perfectly fine.

Your whole country is mountains, yet you live there somehow.

The same is true of the Persians. The stone pillars are thought to be replicas of the wooden pillars used to hold up their tents back when they were a nomadic people.

Yes it's possible to live some places but there's a reason the roman empire had a bigger population

Yes by having easy access to African bananas, while we were forced to hunt and preserve food throughout the winter.

Ok you won

whats so primitive about them? They had loots of wood. It suited the climate. Stone houses are cold af, and more suited for the mediterranean climate

Those were preserved and constantly maintain. Stone architecture stands alone for centuries and retains its shape

>we
Swedes and Vikings aren't related

Vikings left long ago

The Norse believed that they were created by Odin to be warriors because Odin foresaw the return of the Giants and the end of the world, so he made man to be a warlike race who would fight alongside the Gods at the end of the world. Comfort wasn't high on their priorities.

As such, much of Norse society was based around warrior culture (i.e. it was law that when travelling you MUST carry weapons). The Vikings were simply Norsemen who raided in order to gain riches, see the world and demonstrate their prowess and bravery so they would be remembered after they died in poems and sagas, and if they died a good enough death then perhaps they would go to Valhalla. In this society, where dying was forefront in their minds and (at least according to some historians) your afterlife was not guaranteed but had to be won through deeds and battle, architecture just wasn't important to them.

Don't forget that Norse traders and raiders travelled the globe, and had contact with over 50 countries from Spain to China and India and everything in between. They saw all this architecture and met the cultures responsible for it bit just didn't care about it. It didn't help them. What they DID take back to Scandinavia was better steel and forging techniques, better armor and weapon crafting ideas - things that they cared about and wanted.

Nordics were the cleanest and probably most well fed people at that time. They usually washed themselves weekly, Germans, French and Brits didn't.

whats the point of nice houses if you are out pillaging and plundering most of the year

It also doesn't hold warmth as well as wooden houses.

We did make southern-inspired castles later. We have a few documentaries about them and how living in them was sheer hell for most people and it wasn't uncommon for people to freeze to death inside them in winter.

Chingiz-khan had ever more primitive houses, still he took half of the planet.

>military advanced
>didn't even master the shield wall

The shield wall was one of their main fighting strategies. Even the early norsemen swords were similar to the roman gladius. Fuck off Jean-Claude.

stop being such a stupid kike

>The shield wall was one of their main fighting strategies.
Compare a testudo to the drunken pub crawl the nords dare call a shield wall.

>Why were the Vikings houses primitive while being millitary advanced?
why would you need advanced building techniques if the population is dispersed so sparsely over the land? You only need superior building techniques if your supply of materials diminishes or you need to build densley populated towns

Probably due to a lack of those kinds of resources in Scandinavia

That was built in 1762, moron.

This. They didn't care about pretty buildings and their culture didn't emphasise it. They had contact with countless other cultures and learned many things from who they met, but never bothered to learn how to build better buildings? Because it wasn't something they needed or wanted.

Their personal deeds were far more important for them to live on forever than their buildings. It's right there in the poem Havamal in the Sagas:

" Cattle die, kinsmen die, all men will die. But a noble name and noble deeds will live forever"

...

All of these answers are right. I mean, their "elite soldiers" tactics were to ingest a bunch of psychosis inducing drugs and charge at the enemies swinging like madmen. Yup, really advanced OP.

Here's another Danish reconstruction

Historically inaccurate. No evidence has been found to support the theory they ingested mushrooms or drugs. Most of what we know of them comes from the writings of the Christian monasteries who were obviously quite keen to portray them negatively. Even the Icelandic Sagas were written by Snorri Sturlisson, a Christian and so must be looked at with a critical eye.

Despite their lack of mixed unit tactics, the viking warriors were very effective hit and run guerilla fighters, and once they organised in significant numbers were more than able to defeat standing armies - for example the sack of Paris, the carving out of the Danelaw, the foundation of Normandy by Rollo which would lead to the conquest of England and Sicily etc.

>Vikings werent real warriors they were just raiders and pillagers! They stood no chance against a professional army!

Pretty much any army in Europe at that time consisted of conscripted peasants with little to no military training and a handful of mercenaries.
Which only differs from how the vikings did it by the fact that the peasants were required to serve per their Lord/King's command.

No they didnt. Some still lives in reservations kind of like your natives

>lead to the conquest of England and Sicily etc.
Because of French influences nothing to do with Viking shit. And Rollo got beat a few times before he won.

Low population density

Looks pretty comfy to me fám

>The Normans only conquered England because they left behind their original style of warfare in favour of a combined arms approach.
And who did they take England from? Other vikings that all ready conquered before it.

How did they do it?

The vikings where not petty raiders and pirates, they where capable of launching big operations with thousands of ships and tens of thousands of men. This is a fact and its not debatable.

You should consider ending yourself.

That's a skip(ship), a small one that seem to have some problems with support, not common.

Anyways the building were built of tree, and as today, you do not let a house stand forever. After it is ran down, you tare it down and build a new one. That's why you got the (((churches))) from that period preserved, few stone buildings, but there are some.

Mentioned in the sagas too, the bigger houses and halls of different kinds had multiple stories in them. Ther is one small poor village preserved in Bygdoy in (((oslo))) (((west))), but it's more commn poor man's houses

This is very typical

In pagan society people wanted to keep a deep connection with nature so they built their houses out of wood as trees were of spiritual significance to them. Evidence that supports this is the fact that roman villas in England remained untouched by Anglos and Norsemen after they had been deserted

Because the weather was shit.

It's the same reason why we never fucked around with castles until several centuries later.

We viKANGs built the fucking pyramids you retards!

ODIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>Daily stupid viking discussions from niggers with no warrior culture or history

Strictly speaking, Vikings were nothing particularly amazing. We were just the biggest dudes in all of Europe with the most advanced raiding techniques due to our ability to embark and disembark from our longboats.

Aside from that, actual professional Viking warriors who weren't just serfs were still the cream of the crop and the very best in all of Europe. Hence the existence of the Varangian Guard.

You don't become the top fucking military brass of the Eastern Roman Empire for the lulz.

>But they got BTFO by actual armies xDDDDD

Wow, so raiding parties were beaten by prepared militias and actual armies? Impressive.

There's more nuance to all this shit and you autistis aren't worthy of discussing it.

>The Normans only conquered England because they left behind their original style of warfare in favour of a combined arms approach.
This is very wrong, the illegtime King Harold/Harald took the throne during christcucking here, the throne belonged to King Harald Hardråde, who came from Byzantium/Miklagard to claim it with Norway.
Before he went there he went down to Villhjalm Ruðajarl and was there over the winter. He agreed to marry his daughter, once he had taken England.

Villhjalm and the rulers before him all the way to Rollo/Gane Rolv had what was called freeland for vikings, so they could come and get piece there, but not go in viking down Signá and France which he guarded.

Anyways when he heard about the fall of Harald Sigurdson(Hardårde, the one who takes the though calls/hard ruler) he snapped. He got on horseback, his wife was approuching him he kicked her in the chest with the cowboy shit on in his shoes so she died, he did not stop til he reached his ships. They came and they gassed the english kind, relative of Aðalstan. Stigand also came down from Ireland at the same time, I don't remember his assistance from top of my head. But there just over two weeks after King Harald fell at stamform, Villhjalm came and for a long time sat his linage on the throne, our right of rule in England was gone, Villhjalm had the blood to call him self King.
youtube.com/watch?v=414mrPgK5Yk
youtube.com/watch?v=S0zGo122vMY
youtube.com/watch?v=OB8iGXyLoNY

lansstyrelsen.se/Halland/Sv/lantbruk-och-landsbygd/Radgivning-kurser/natur-och-kulturvarden/lar-kanna-din-by/halmstad/kvibille/Pages/default.aspx