Vidar

[Vidar @vidarslon]

@BRADLEY24107604 @ClintonThought That's bad teaching, but it isn't unique. Plenty of people, like me, were taught only left wing interpretations as unquestionable. The problem isn't the viewpoint, it's presenting any interpretation as settled fact instead of letting students engage with the evidence.

[Vidar @vidarslon]

@BRADLEY24107604 @ClintonThought Studying opposing perspectives is essential in modern history. If everything you know about Nazi Germany comes from British sources, or everything about Britain comes from German ones, your understanding will be narrow and incomplete. Censorship is the death of history.

[Vidar @vidarslon]

@_Misozuke @JanAageFjortoft My pleasure!

[Vidar @vidarslon]

@_Misozuke @JanAageFjortoft That show very loose with history. Floki is loosely based on Hrafna Flóki, an early explorer of Iceland, but the character is mostly fictional. If you want the real Viking world, read Heimskringla by Snorri or something by Sverre Bagge, Jon Viðar Sigurdsson or Anders Winroth!

[Vidar @vidarslon]

@_Misozuke @JanAageFjortoft He's certainly a well-known figure in Scandinavian culture, but not really a national hero in Norway. Kings like St. Olav and Harald Fairhair are far more heroic and well known, I would say. Ragnar is better understood as a legendary Norse figure than a historical national icon.

[Vidar @vidarslon]

@_Misozuke @JanAageFjortoft Not exactly. Norway and Denmark shared a Norse world in Ragnar’s supposed time, so the borders were blurrier than modern national labels suggest. But the main tradition presents Ragnar as Danish, not Norwegian.

[Vidar @vidarslon]

@_Misozuke @JanAageFjortoft Olav Haraldsson and Harald Hardråde, as Jan mentioned, were kings of Norway and remain among the greatest icons of our nation!

[Vidar @vidarslon]

@_Misozuke @JanAageFjortoft Not according to the main medieval sources. If Ragnar Lothbrok existed as a single historical person at all, he's most commonly portrayed as Danish. That said, he's a legendary figure, so assigning him a modern nationality is difficult.

[Vidar @vidarslon]

@_Misozuke @JanAageFjortoft We are talking about Norwegians here.

[Vidar @vidarslon]

@lauvnes @Vikinghistory Det kan godt hende. Jeg tenker likevel at formålet betyr noe. En vikingferd var tradisjonelt en ekspedisjon for rikdom, makt og ære, mens Sigurds ferd var motivert av ønsket om å forsvare de kristne helligdommene. Så klart var det nok også et element av ære og makt i det.

[Vidar @vidarslon]

@Thebeatdrops1 @beyond_capital What on earth are you saying?

[Vidar @vidarslon]

@ArcticDago @joakial_ Neida, du har nok rett i det!

[Vidar @vidarslon]

@William91713663 @EcFoLavugu @simonban @TheDJ_King You keep hiding behind "prove it" because defining your evidential standard would expose the problem. If you can't say what evidence you'd accept, your position isn't skepticism, it's dogmatism.

[Vidar @vidarslon]

@William91713663 @EcFoLavugu @simonban @TheDJ_King Then what would count as sufficient evidence for a unique event in the 1st century, in your mind? If your standard is impossible in principle, it's not a historical standard. It's a philosophical one.

[Vidar @vidarslon]

@TooNooooooooo @simonban @TheDJ_King Fine. Paul's letters, the early creed in 1 Corinthians 15, the Gospels, Josephus, Tacitus, and archaeology all contribute to the historical case. Now explain why your standard accepts comparable evidence for other ancient figures but rejects it here.

[Vidar @vidarslon]

@EcFoLavugu @simonban @TheDJ_King So by your logic, no ancient historian is independent because every historian wrote from within their own culture, politics, or religion. That's not historical methodology. It's a category error.

[Vidar @vidarslon]

@gugagugaugau @Leolopyz @simonban @TheDJ_King You keep asserting "not independent" without demonstrating it. Paul's letters are earlier than the Gospels and independent of them. So how exactly is that a single source?

[Vidar @vidarslon]

@William91713663 @EcFoLavugu @simonban @TheDJ_King Congratulations, you've discovered that testimony isn't infallible. Historians already know that. The debate is which explanation best fits the evidence, not whether testimony is automatically true.

[Vidar @vidarslon]

@gugagugaugau @TooNooooooooo @simonban @TheDJ_King That's not irony. I challenged the standard for evaluating historical evidence, which was tge topic of discussion. You responded by demanding proof of God. Those are different questions. This really shouldn't be this difficult...