Why Charlemagne Had A Vendetta Against Vikings | The Last Journey Of The Vikings

Why Charlemagne Had A Vendetta Against Vikings | The Last Journey Of The Vikings | Absolute History

Рет қаралды 54,755

2 жыл бұрын

In the French Empire, the Vikings come face to face with new defenses and Charlemagne refuses to hand over Christian land to pagans and pirates. The defense continues but then changes.
Nearly 1,000 years ago, the Vikings left Scandinavia and settled across Europe - giving their name to Normandy along the way - before their Norman descendants seized the English throne at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. But what do we really know about them? By combining expert analysis with compelling drama, 'The Last Journey of the Vikings' tells a new and surprising story about this complex people.
It's like Netflix for history... Sign up to History Hit, the world's best history documentary service and get 50% off using the code 'AbsoluteHistory' bit.ly/3vn5cSH
This channel is part of the History Hit Network. Any queries please contact: owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com

Пікірлер: 83

@hollowillow 2 жыл бұрын

I have no doubt this KZfaq channel is doing something right because I always end up gravitating to these videos on Friday nights 💓

@Seriouskai 2 жыл бұрын

As saturated as KZfaq is with mediocre at best channels these days, this is one of the few golden ones really worth watching. Keep up the good work!

@ronaldderooij1774 2 жыл бұрын

Well, this is not what I have learned in my life about Vikings. And note that around 810, the years don't add up. As far as I have learned, Charlemagne wanted a coastal defence and a navy, but never succeeded in answering the question on who would pay for it. He wanted the local lords to pay, the local lords wanted him to pay. As far as I know, this has never been resolved. This meant that the city of Dorestad in the (nowadays) Netherlands some 60 km inland along the Rhine was raided many times from 730 onwards to 1000. Also the Danes were at war with the Frisians from 720 on but made peace later. Eventually they located into Frisia (most probably). That part of the (nowadays) Netherlands resisted Christianisation for at least another 150 years against the Franks. So, I must admit, I am puzzled by this video. Maybe I am wrong, maybe not. I must dive in again.

@jonsacramone4429 Жыл бұрын

Because, in entertainment, priority is given to artistic vision, fluidity of story, budgetary concerns, a strict shooting schedule, actor preference, etc etc etc…… with historical accuracy waaaaaaaaay down, at the bottom of that list of priorities, and this is entertainment, not a historical lecture. Anyone allowing themselves to be educated by a documentary, or scripted film will, unfortunately only be educated in a mixed bag of different peoples and studios, glorified fan fictions. 🤷‍♂️

@deadfurydbf9647 2 жыл бұрын

Vikings didnt have those horns on their helmets

@kathidubach 2 жыл бұрын

No, of course not! Just try to imagine what would happen to your head and neck if you had horns on your helmet and your adversary were to strike with his sword or axe or whatever: if you‘re lucky, you loose your helmet. Or you could break your neck. Both not what you want as a warrior!

@jairoukagiri2488 2 жыл бұрын

@@kathidubach It's actually a Nordic / Bronze Age thing, Sumerians had small horn circle helmets/diadems and some Sea Peoples as well as Nordics of the time had frontal spiral tipped helms. Plus the Celtic flapping-raven one. From the front it could block a hit better but it is something to hook onto.

@Frank7077 2 жыл бұрын

Great video and nice listening :-)))

@AsadKhan-ii3es 2 жыл бұрын

Fantastic documentry

@rafaelnunes7156 2 жыл бұрын

Well, as far as I know, Charlemagne was pretty much dead when they made Reichskrone.

@garychynne1377 2 жыл бұрын

nicely done

@tiffanydelgado342 2 жыл бұрын

Yay! New video!

@dansoderberg4753 2 жыл бұрын

they did not only sail west but also east

@Wouldyoujust_ 2 жыл бұрын

Man I wanna watch this SO BAD, like right now! I have to cook though, and I can't do it with the subtitles🤣🤣 I can't wait for after dinnnerrrrrrrr!!❤❤❤

@sometimes..... 2 жыл бұрын

I would just!

@Wouldyoujust_ 2 жыл бұрын

@@sometimes..... But WOULD YOU THOUGH? 😂

@dagoat1234beepbop 2 жыл бұрын

Ragnar is a goat Viking!

@palehorsecowboy4 15 күн бұрын

Least we forget. Irminsul - Verden

@LeSadistique 2 жыл бұрын

No actors and burning trees with CGI next time.

@Monstress_Art 2 жыл бұрын

I’m pretty sure the tree burning was fake, unless you wanted it to be real. Looked very cgi to me.

@Red_Twizzler 2 жыл бұрын

@@Monstress_Art I think he’s saying “Chill with the drama, Absolute History.” I agree. Actors could be replaced by real images, historical sites, artifacts, and paintings. Why pay for all those actors and CGI? I bet it’s very engaging for kids, though! Edit: the CGI maps are pretty cool

@loke6664 2 жыл бұрын

In a way, I think Charlemagne is partly guilty of the viking raids. The raid on Lindisfarne in 793 were very likely a reaction to Charlemagne's policy against pagans by a few annoyed Danes. However, it was the enormous riches those guys came home with which basically were done with zero or close to zero risk that started the whole thing. The vikings weren't more evil then anyone else at the time, they just found a way to get rich easily with close to no resistance. Monks generally tended to have no security and plenty of gold, something the Scandinavians didn't know until those few got annoyed and decided to plunder the cloister where Charlemagne's top advisor came from. And until Aelfred the Great started to fortify towns the viking raids followed the same basic model of a few adventurous people getting into a ship to find an easy target to either plunder or blackmail. And in France case, when Charles the Simple (who history were rather mean to, "the simple" didn't mean stupid but more that he said what he thought without any weasel speak) gave Rollo Normandy. Once that happened, viking raids went from smaller local affairs to massive raids by rulers and mighty Jarls.

@brucecampbell6578 Жыл бұрын

Those tribes who fled Roman interregnum concentrated in Denmark and Scandinavian countries as well as Scotland. Many had every reason to hate Roman vassalage which claims all the spoils. By the 7th Century they were too concentrated and spilled out onto a feuding world. I would suppose the sack of Lindisfarne was also proof that the primary target was Christian holy places because that was also the first target of Christians. Charlemagne butchered the Arians with the blessings of the Pope. That also pushed tribes toward the North East and less hospitable lands.

@loke6664 Жыл бұрын

@@brucecampbell6578 "Charlemagne butchered the Arians ..."? Weren't those a Gnostic sect from Alexandria founded by Arius? I don't see what they had to do with the vikings? I know the Popes hated them but most of that happened in the 4th and 5th century far south from Denmark. Or am I missing something?

@atlet1 2 жыл бұрын

Not correct! The vikings lived under the midieval warm period with wine production in Britain and hospitable temperature on Greenland, not the cold temperatures of today. Humans adopt to cold temperature in a few days, after which they stop freezing. My and my friends experience is an example of that. So they where not freezing very much. The don't wasted their fuel outside, but had fires indoors. Scandinavians have lived in cooperations wit the laps until recently and knew their tents(kåta) and surviving skills in cold weather. They used a special grass in their watertight shoes during cold weather. They were used to live in much colder and wetter conditions in Scandinavia and was trained in staying warm and dry during harsh weather, like Scandinavian soldiers are today. Reindeer fur is very warm. Eier down is very warm. There was a lot of work to be done between the wars. For example maintaining boats, sails, armour, weapons, clothes. Keep ready by exercise. Perform defence preparations. Intelligence. Making up plans.

@Jarlemoore1 2 жыл бұрын

Beginning the 14th century they had to leave Greenland due to the climate changing and becoming colder and harsher in the Northern Hemisphere.

@daneaxe6465 2 жыл бұрын

@@Jarlemoore1 You mean 15th century. The Greenland vikings were still doing good into the 1400's. One example was a wedding in the chapel in 1408. Later in the 1400's the climate took a cold turn, most likely due to volcanic eruptions elsewhere in the world. "Global warming" will turn to fatal global cooling in a very short time less than a year from historical sources. Nothing grows in cold weather so you starve.

@OhCanadathebest 2 жыл бұрын

Learn to spell

@reed3249 2 жыл бұрын

vikings with no helmets and no armor and the franks wearing 12th century medieval armor in the 8th century... I guess this must be a French production.

@lauriemarie6902 2 жыл бұрын

I wonder why they never mentioned they can't swim? Philadelphia USA

@mattsmite8778 2 жыл бұрын

Maybe because they could swim? Not sure what kind of articles you've been reading, there's so much misinformation about vikings it's incredible.

@Mythical.History 2 жыл бұрын

They travel through sea all the time. They must've known how to swim

@EdmundSkye 2 жыл бұрын

damn vikings, me playing CK3

@johnnyazer5779 2 жыл бұрын

Its funny how today people flip out about cockroaches in their kitchen, back then they were like sprinkles on a Dairy Queen sundae.

@maryfrump7937 2 жыл бұрын

Grampa!

@Jarlemoore1 2 жыл бұрын

Just one thing the Franks weren't so innocent when it came to raiding and plundering and they did a bit of it themselves before and during the Viking Age.

@bioliv1 2 жыл бұрын

And they were the worst of the fourth crusade at Constantinople! They had NO reverence for the great art of the city!

@jenna2431 2 жыл бұрын

As a Danish Viking descendant, I despise Charlemagne. As an anti-Xtian, I despise him more.

@xavisanchez7522 2 жыл бұрын

The franks also betrayed the goths( today catalonia ) ruining the union of our linguistic domain( occitania,catalonia, “ sud de france” )

@samueleandriolo4517 Жыл бұрын

Charlemagne was a great man who sponsored schools, art, laws and culture, the Danes couldn't even write, they're not the same

@maxelving8834 2 жыл бұрын

Why the HBO vikings look instead of actual historical vikings? It's a documentary isn't it?

@ellipirelli4007 2 жыл бұрын

First 😁👍🏻

@mism847 2 жыл бұрын

@charlesmaximus9161 29 күн бұрын

This is very pop culture in the narrative it presents. This notion that the beliefs of pre-Christian Scandinavians, Saxons, etc., and other peoples were their “religion” - that is, viewed in exactly the same way that Christians saw the Holy Trinity or Muslims Allah - is an easily disproven and long oversimplified myth. As Dr. Matthew R. Johnson rightly noted, paganism is not a religion; at least, not at all in the way people in the ancient world thought of religion. Because the postmodern Western world in which we live today is so grossly secularised, that word, “religion”, has become as bastardised and as vague as the culture itself. First and foremost, the entire point of religion is that there is a fundamental institutional root upon which its core tenets and creeds are further built. Religion is, above all else, organised. As there are orthodox members of a given organised religion, so too are there its heretics and apostates. Moreover, religion maintains sacred canons which preserve these aforementioned tenets, as well as their other beliefs and ideas. The entire drive behind civilisations was the burning human urge to preserve its values. And, if need be, to promulgate these values by way of expansion. You could maybe argue that the Roman imperial cult was more of an actual religion than say the tribal customs and folkways of the Cherusci of Germania. There is at least somewhat of a decent case to be made of that. But still, those beliefs also changed swiftly as old ages passed and new ones began. Even the very term “pagan” is a word that arose AFTER Christianity, not before. Ancient Suebians did not call themselves “pagans”. Their beliefs and ideas would not be regarded as such until contact with Christendom. There are no pagan heretics or pagan canons, no single, unifying pagan creed, no pagan saints, no pagan martyrs, etc. What we call “paganism” was simply the broad set of customs, traditions, folkways, and ideas about the world and its basic functions. It is essentially how they explained the world around them; that is exactly why pre-Christian beliefs were so diverse and exclusively bound to the region in which they arose. It was how ancient peoples explained their world. Whereas we have separate fields of study (the sciences) in our own time, they had a set of highly symbolic and ritualised notions and habits that were directly related to their immediate environment. Tell me, what is paganism? Give me a clear, concise definition, please. No one can do it. Ask anyone what should be a fairly straightforward question and you’ll walk away with a million and one different answers. “Pagan beliefs” are far too broad and were ever changing; these beliefs constantly altered as generations passed and new ones inherited them. Even the very word, “pagan” is a Christian idea. The pre-Christian peoples did not call themselves “pagans”. Some might be quick to suggest Julian the Apostate, but even he in many ways was more like one of the first neopagans.

@AcapellaFella 2 жыл бұрын

Kinda boring but thanks anyway.

@brucecampbell6578 2 жыл бұрын

Just a might dismissive on the issue of Charles provoking the retribution of those who sought to submit to vassalage of the Catholic Church and Roman taxation. To many tribes the north was a haven from Roman inquisition and slavery. Many Protestants arose in the North. Charles was know for persecuting Christian believers who did not subscribe to the Catholic creed. I am just saying the Vikings may have well been motivated by a good deal more than just plunder. Offense being the best defense. The attacks on Christian churches also fits more neatly with such understanding. Or just paint them as bloodthirsty heathen. Who threw the first punch??

@One.DeSanctis. 2 жыл бұрын

Protestants, in the 8th and 9th Centuries? There were none. The original break in the Christian Church was the East West Schism of late 11th Century. It established Constantinople as the seat of power for the Eastern Orthodoxy while Rome retained power in the West. Europe has to wait another 500 years when Marin Luther gets out his hammer for Protestants. Are you simply saying that non-Christian peoples resisted (protested) forced relgious conversion?

@brucecampbell6578 2 жыл бұрын

@@One.DeSanctis. Perhaps the Arians were a Protestant insurrection, though later branded heretics? I also consider Islam a protestant revolution. Anyone rebelling against Roman ecclesiastical doctrine is loosely protestant. Many were the protestors of Roman vassalage and taxation and Roman god men. Justinian and Charles the Butcher put many self professed Christians to the sword for their heretical beliefs. Your last paragraph shows some insight but is narrow in scope. Currently we witness a situation in the borderlands between the Greek and Latin Romans for rites of suzerainty. Ukraine will likely be divided between Latins and Greeks. The Jesuits guard all the exits. Masters of the dialectic. Thanks for the conversation by the way. Not many venture down this path.

@samueleandriolo4517 Жыл бұрын

The inquisition didn't even exist at the time, read some history

@brucecampbell6578 Жыл бұрын

@@samueleandriolo4517 I would refer you to the Christians of Arian persuasion. You would parse the use of the word inquisition? I say inquisition. small "i" has been used by the Romans to quell dissidents since the beginnings of empire. For the modern inquisitions I would refer you to the Jesuit oath of extreme induction. Our own dollar is an obvious symbol of Roman indenture. Washington DC our capital of Roman interregnum.

@samueleandriolo4517 Жыл бұрын

@@brucecampbell6578 Arianism wasn't a thing anymore, it was a problem of earlier centuries, and I don't understand what are you saying with the Roman thing, you're just pulling out completely different concepts to look smart, and failing

@Jarlemoore1 2 жыл бұрын

I anyone is interested Charlemagne was no better than the Muslims when it came to forcing religion on others.

@samueleandriolo4517 Жыл бұрын

To be fair the Muslim didn't force Islam on Jews and Christians, as long as they paid a tax

@virgiljjacas1229 2 жыл бұрын

Before I go, there still NO PHYSICAL REMAINS of that character they call Charlemagne 🤔🤔🤔

@willbe5994 2 жыл бұрын

Oh wow you’re such a deep thinker

@virgiljjacas1229 2 жыл бұрын

😲😲😲 WHOA !!! How did you find out 😲😲😲 !!! 🤣🤣🤣 !!! You better be or ... 😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶

@jairoukagiri2488 2 жыл бұрын

What about his sons? The same is true of Ragnar.

@virgiljjacas1229 2 жыл бұрын

☝️☝️☝️ But Ragnar history could be validated. The Muslims sources from Al-Andaluz (Iberia) are only " allegoric " from later times. The location with claiming to be his tomb have been debunked 🤔🤔🤔🤓🤓🤓

@Mythical.History 2 жыл бұрын

@@virgiljjacas1229 Stop using too much emojis

@rolandrabier 2 жыл бұрын

Why would those young men bring girls from Scandinavia ? They probably did like modern migrants, they found women on their new land.

@jairoukagiri2488 2 жыл бұрын

One general idea can be they were part of a family who moved together, since a father may take his whole family rather than try to parse them out to relatives. If they had any*, it was also traditional to maintain skills as a family and community, even if it was a restructured or cobbled together one. They noted metalworkers, living off the land required hunters and often times they were part of a warband even as mentioned. They weren't always young men, but if they were they'd still likely be 'family', and most young men were likely out to do that. The father may have died in war or be out else where, the son may have had to bring along a mother, and could also have his own family beginning in other cases. As mentioned, they also dealt in slaves and the whole feudal system package. Farmers could farm, traders may not have been able to settle into any 'guilds' or rent existing shops. They mention polities, exiled groups may be desperate, it could be whole clan units or retinues of a lesser scale. Women who could defend themselves and partake in combat is also a factor on a societal level. Modern migrants aren't Migrations Era migrants. Nobody gave a "free" boat ride to a serf or 'nobody' freeman back then unless it was Crusader-y/Church efforts as it could be seen today too. Whether its Avars, Normans, Goths, Turkic folk or back to Xenophon, you didn't migrate unarmed and often times it was somewhat opposite. Situations were very different from the chief who seized victory and gained lands to settle and mingle into, outliers who didn't get as big of a piece of the pie as they might have hoped or lost their social-ladder rungs through events may have ended up as strays. It is a romanticized idea of scooping up a fair maiden at least some of the time. They besieged a city and while a Carl had the benefit of a bard, you're not exactly going to be hailed as Roland by Parisian girls for half starving them and giving their kin disease. Or as some migrants today don't mesh well with the locals for whatever reasons, like forming a Little Italy out of a graduating class from a small town where you can have some of that college-mingling.. but it's done by real-life European backpacking *for* college. It's hard to say exactly, but with such volumes of people you are likely getting both wild events and stereotypical ones driving people, much like the comment about individual goals fueling a mass of effort. Desperation and resourcefulness, necessity, leads to invention and perseverance. (Or failure, of course.)