Is this true?

Is this true?

Other urls found in this thread:

hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/women.htm
youtu.be/DLUMINLTNLE?t=193
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0254.2011.00323.x/abstract
amp.history.com/news/dna-proves-viking-women-were-powerful-warriors
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.23308/full
twitter.com/AnonBabble

They inspect one skeleton and now they're throwing around wildly exaggerated figures?

this
people in viking societies were often buried with relics from their family, including weapons and armor. all this bullshit about "female warriors" is complete nonsense and only serves to push an agenda.

you just typed that into notepad

No some gril on fb said that, a desi liberal. Literal we wuz vikangz and shieeet.

SISSY VIKINGS

Or I meant you just typed that into mspaint

whatever

why would a women thousands of kilometers away from scandinavia care about this?

>ywn get gangraped by qt viking sluts

No
Typical we wuz, I claim gender roles aren't bullshit since men need to be strong to protect grils. She pulls this out of her ass

>it's actually real

I've seen it claimed elsewhere.

We did treat (native non-slave) women better before Christianity came though. Women held high status and violence against women was regarded as very vile.
I'm not gonna pretend it was an egalitarian society or anything, absolutely not, but the roles were favorable by contrast.
This is an OK summary:
hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/women.htm
(starts off with establishing the restrictions)
>about 50%
I only a moron would believe this. I suggest you distance yourself.

What the fuck is this bitch smoking

Go back to sleep

WE

Feminism or some liberal kike shit

So women weren't vikings?

idk about 50%, but i know that females in viking era were treated with respect (because of muh paganism) and there were many female warriors

Salaam
:^)

go away

No it's a bullshit Feminist scam

youtu.be/DLUMINLTNLE?t=193

This show has a female viking that rapes monks, much to her husband's chagrin.

Depends on what you mean. Some people say 'vikings'/'viking society' and mean people living in the period where there were viking raiders.
There's no actual evidence for there being female vikings that I've heard of.
I think where she gets this from is probably this:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0254.2011.00323.x/abstract
Or more accurately people misquoting this (there's a lot). This is about settlers, not vikings as warriors.

Southern has been pretty cool lately.

this show was awesome
I wish Netflix also had the version in Norwegian.

>nor semen

Why is it called Norsemen? Is it a perspective of Norse-men from the female characters perspective? That'd be pretty unique.

I know the article this is from. The truth is that 50% of graves found with individuals buried with warrior related attributes are female. Feminists jumped to the conclusion that 50% of all viking warriors were female, while this does not logically follow. There are many reasons why a woman could be buried with swords and helmets and shields. One may be that she was herself a warrior. Another possibility is that she was married to a warrior or her son was a warrior. Yet another possibility is that it has nothing to do with war at all and is simply a sign of wealth (showing the woman in question was upper class, and nothing else).

This is also after the inspection of ONE collection of graves by the way.

Sweet jeezers
amp.history.com/news/dna-proves-viking-women-were-powerful-warriors

>psychology major
This is gonna be a long flame war and being the autistic OCD faggot I'll keep arguing

Keep your responses short and to the point, make her look crazy and long winded like she is

if this is true the vikings were very weak

It's called Vikingane in Norwegian just the US version is Norsemen

For the love of God I demand help, she's a fucking psychology major, Im using my 2nd profile now, if any of you have any fake profile I could really use some help

They were raiders first and foremost, exaggerated by the unarmed peasants and monks they preyed on. They were probably impressive as individual warriors (there's a reason why the East Romans preferred them as bodyguards), but as an organized group they were more often than not defeated by Latin armies. The closest thing they had to success was the empire of Canute the Great, with the Norman invasion in a distant second place (mostly because it came under the condition of *subjugation* to the French monarch).

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.23308/full
Give her these and explain the confusion. You'll look smart. If you wish to be courteous admit the first one as truth (the one she linked indirectly because she's just a stupid ape who reads articles who'd use images from TV to bring across an idea) but ask her to show where she got the number 50%.
When she finds (onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0254.2011.00323.x/abstract ) or anything linking to it tell her you're not convinced that that says they're 50%.

underrated

W-wait...

Does that mean Swedish female Vikings raped my ancestors?

No, she's just one of the vikings. It's a really good comedy from Norway.

>raiders first and foremost
Traders first and foremost rather. Then raiders, then settlers, then invaders. And yes the biggest successful invasion was of England.

She says that they are of the highest rank, she didn't mention numbers this time since I stated that. Wat 2 say?

>Traders first and foremost rather.
Yeah, yeah, true dat. I specifically had "vikings" in mind as the guys on the boat, utterly discarding the majority of Scandinavia's population at the time who would (as in the rest of Europe) mostly be non-combatants.

Sarmatian women made greko-roman warriors piss their skirts


Hippocrates explicitly classes them as Scythian and describes their warlike women and their customs:

>Their women, so long as they are virgins, ride, shoot, throw the javelin while mounted, and fight with their enemies. They do not lay aside their virginity until they have killed three of their enemies, and they do not marry before they have performed the traditional sacred rites.
>A woman who takes to herself a husband no longer rides, unless she is compelled to do so by a general expedition. They have no right breast; for while they are yet babies their mothers make red-hot a bronze instrument constructed for this very purpose and apply it to the right breast and cauterize it, so that its growth is arrested, and all its strength and bulk are diverted to the right shoulder and right arm.

Ask her where she got that detail. Not much is known of that age. We Norse didn't keep records well at all. Most of the knowledge about Norse society is told through verbally communicated stories. What's the point though? She's clearly not actually interested. She just has an agenda.

Why do men thousands of miles from skandinavia care about vikings?

The Romans never reached their territory though, and most of what we know from them is by the writings of Herodotes (the father of histiography), not Hippocrates (the father of medicine). Herodotes, though the first one to actively catalog the history of multiple civilizations, was also known for his tall tales and nowhere near as reliable as, say, Tacitus. It's possible that these Sarmatian amazons never existed. This is especially hard to figure out because the Sarmatians were nomadic and left no evidence of their existence behind other than a few burial mounds.

being proud of being descended from vikings is like being proud of being descended from rapefugees.

t. my ancestors were poor peasants

>le vikings were pillaging niggers meme
yawn

They were

In a brutal world.