Question on Viking Berserker

Well, I cannot but agree, and the again, I can not agree... It was beyond doubt extremey bad business. And it went horribly wrong. But I remain to the fact that balming the individual soldiers has little use.

They did have a choice. They acted up on immoral orders. Everyone has a choice to disobey. They could have done much more. Sure they have disorders due to being there. Nevertheless, the victim role is far from it, and I am not so sure that all of them feel mortally guilty about the incident either. There defiently are some that came out and talked about the wrongs in this, but not all have done so. They were positioned in the town to help, and most importantly defend these people, as that is the point of a safe haven. If they were there just to keep guard they would not have been armed, they could have just used security gurads for guarding premises.

Originally posted by Aelfgifu There are cases of Dutch soldiers who had been in Sebrenica and had PTSS.

Originally posted by Mosquito [QUOTE=Aelfgifu]     I dont say that western slavic pirates were more feared than scandinavians. But it is fact that in 10th century Baltic sea by many was called "Mare Rugianorum" - from isle of Rugen which was base of slavic pirates.

Well, a lot of the armor the guys are wearing is wrong. I think the king, Wulfgar, I think, is wearing a chest plate, which I don't think was invented at the time the movie was supposed to take place. Also, one of the warriors was wearing a Roman gladiator helmet...why was that in there?! I thought the movie was a great action film, however. 

yup, im here. thanks for the info guys, i learned a lot bout the vikings. (-:

Originally posted by Timotheus   Originally posted by Aelfgifu   Originally posted by MOSQUITO If you look closer into Sagas it is obvious that killing king Olaf was a plot.     The trouble is, you cannot look this close into sagas when looking for historical facts. They are simply not reliable enough, certainly not in the details. - They were mostly written down in the twelfth century, twohundred years after events took place. - They were written in Iceland, so by another people, who might have had another agenda on the subject. - And they were written by authors, not scribes, so they are not even precise representation of oral tradition, but they are a carefully composed construct made as much for purposes of entertainment as for preserving history.   You just cannot make such a detailed study of the sagas and say it is fact, all you can say is it is the story as known. Often, though, it's all we have to go on, and we have no other way to know what might have happened...some people I've read will just automatically assume the opposite of what the sagas said just because they don't trust anything anybody wrote less than twenty years ago.

I once heard a theory on the BBC that Berserkers could perhaps be warriors with untreated shell-shock. PTSS (Post traumatic stress syndrome) has as one of its main affects that people become detached from feeling and fear. There are cases of Dutch soldiers who had been in Sebrenica and had PTSS. There was one who developed behaviour like driving on the highway and close his eyes, first for a second, then longer and longer. If untreated this behaviour becomes worse, as the sufferer has to find still extremer ways to 'feel'. It sounds a lot like a berserker throwing himself into battle without fear.

Yes - as I understand, there wasn't a special class of "berserkers" but rather that sometimes some of them would "go berserk" and fight on all the adrenaline they had. Well timed it could probably decimate an enemy's line and force a collapse, rather like a cavalry charge. If the line stood firm, it probably wouldn't be worth much.

In my experience, a new(er) source isnt necessary any better than an old source.
What really makes the difference, is who wrote the history - and who ordered it written. 

Edited by Northman - 16-Sep-2006 at 11:48