"For all that, the marriage bond is strict, and
no feature in their mode of life is more creditable to them
than this. Unlike the great majority of barbarians, they
are content with one wife : very few of them have more
than one, and these few exceptions are not due to wan-
tonness ; they are cases of men of high rank, to whom
several matrimonial alliances have been offered from
motives of policy. The wife does not bring a dowry to
her husband ; on the contrary, he offers one to her. This
part of the affair is arranged by her parents and kinsmen,
and they pass judgment on the wedding gifts, which are
no toys collected to suit feminine frivolities or adorn a
bride ; instead of that, they consist of oxen, and a
bridled horse, and shield and spear and sword. These
are the presents that await her as a wife, and her own
wedding present to her husband in return is a gift of
arms. This is the strongest bond of union this the
mystery of marriage ; these are their gods of wedded life.
[...]
So they guard the chastity of their lives, with
no shows to entice them nor orgies to excite their evil
passions. To men and women alike such a thing as
secret correspondence is unknown. Amongst all this
immense population adultery is extremely rare : its
penalty is instant, and is left to the husband ; he cuts
off the hair of the unfaithful wife, strips her, turns
her out of his house in the presence of the kinsmen,
and scourges her through the whole village. For
there is no pardon for the fallen woman ; not by her
beauty, not by her youth, not by her wealth, will she
succeed in finding a husband. For no one there makes
a jest of vice, or says that seducing and being seduced
is the style of the period.
Better still, to be sure, is the practice of those states in
which none but maidens marry, and a woman becomes
a wife with a wife's hopes and wishes once and
once only. Thus it becomes as much a matter of
course for her to have only one husband as to have
only one body or one life, to the end that she may not
look beyond him nor let her desires stray further, and
that she may not so much cherish her husband as her
status as a wife. To limit the number of the family or
to put to death any of the later-born infants is held to
be an abomination, and with the Germans good customs
have more authority than good laws elsewhere. "
- Publius Cornelius Tacitus; Germania
Written in the 1st century AND by their official enemy, which makes it
all the more credible. But Tacitus' was an honorable man, he sought to
rebuke his own people and predicted their inevitable downfall as a
consequence of their increasing degeneracy. The early Roman Republic
adhered to the same moral virtues as the Germanic tribes of Tacitus
time, which was the main reason for their unsurpassed success. (that,
and racial homogeneity, but that goes hand in hand with virtue anyway)
And he was right, the Germanics ended up conquering all of Western
Europe, after the Romans put the final nail in their own coffin by their
de jure adoption of christianity. Then the Germanic kingdoms split and
in-fought after they did the same.
The so-called Viking age was nothing but a united Scandinavian effort
against this foreign usurpative religion. Lindisfarne happened only a
few years after the massacre at Verden (which you recently mentioned in a
vid), after the surviving Saxons fled to Denmark and warned them of
what was imminently impending.
It is hardly a coincidence that that was the time when repeated,
organized attacks on centers of christianity began (even if the
post-modern "historians" say it was for the usual trivial reasons of
'easy target & profit'")
And why was England the main target of invasion by the 'vikings'?
Because they were a brotherfolk, who had fought a similar huge civil war
AGAINST christianity barely even a century prior ( check King Penda of
Mercia, a true hero from our æt). In other words, it was a
liberation-invasion.
'Danedrotten
Dåd vi skylde,
hver, som god
og gjæv vil nævnes.
Ve den fejge
Nidding, som flyr!
når Kongen trænger
til trofast Følge!'
Lindisfarne also happened, because that was the missionary center (HQ)
from where they sent missionaries to Norway. So "big surprise", the
Vikings who sacked that shit hold came from?..... yeah: Norway.
What is also often forgotten, in relation to your comment about the Massacre at Verden, by the
Franks , is that the vast majority of Viking attacks took place
against France . If I recall correctly, as much as 90% of the raids!
However, this happened only after the Scandinavians had spent some time
cleaning up back home in Scandinavia. Because until then (Verden), they
had been tolerant to the Christians, and there were many monasteries and
churches in Scandinavia already -- with British (Celtic and
Anglo-Saxon) monks and priests. They sakced them and burnt those
first and then went to stop more from coming -- from e. g. Lindisfarne.
Indeed, which would make sense, since the Franks were the primary
military enemy. Strategically I think they focused their invasion on
England for these reasons:
1: The forced conversion of the English was still recent, and had far
from settled in the hearts and minds of our brothers, so ousting the
authority would have ensured a quick reversion to their authentic
loyalties.
2: To use England as a launching pad for war against France. If England
had been under our control, the Franks could never have invaded Denmark
as they did, since they would have been split on two fronts. The
Norsemen could never have stood a chance against the combined armies of
the Franks in open-field battle, but we could have stalled them
indefinitely or perhaps even drained them and achieved final victory, if
we had controlled England.
Also, the beginning of the Viking age is such an arbitrary date anyway.
Several of our Kings, most prominently King Hugleik, began raiding
France immediately after they'd adopted christianity around 500AD.
Clovis converted around 507 I believe, which is also approx the exact time that Dannevirke was first built.
