The popular image of the Viking as a horn-helmeted berserker plying the ocean in a dragon-headed long boat is firmly fixed in history. Imagining Viking "conquerors" as much more numerous; technologically superior; and somehow inherently more warlike than their neighbors has overshadowed the cooperation and cultural exchange which characterized much of the Viking Age. In actuality; the Norse explorers and traders were players in a complex exchange of technology; customs; and religious beliefs between the ancient pre-Christian societies of northern Europe and the Christian-dominated nations surrounding the Mediterranean. DuBois examines Anglo-Saxon; Celtic; and Mediterranean traditions to locate significant Nordic parallels in conceptions of supernatural beings; cults of the dead; beliefs in ghosts; and magical practices. These beliefs were actively held alongside Christianity for many years; and were finally incorporated into the vernacular religious practice. The Icelandic sagas reflect this complex process in their inclusion of both Christian and pagan details. This work differs from previous examinations in its inclusion of the Christian thirteenth century as part of the evolution of Nordic religions from localized pagan cults to adherents of a larger Roman faith.Thomas DuBois unravels for the first time the history of the Nordic religions in the Viking Age and shows how these ancient beliefs and their oral traditions incorporated both a myriad of local beliefs and aspects of foreign religions; most notably Christianity.
#3549302 in Books Stackpole Books 2006-12-13Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.00 x .59 x 6.04l; .67 #File Name: 0811733807256 pages
Review
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Needed a subject matter expert to review before release!By M. FordOverall this was a pretty good overview and well worth the quick read it was.However; it is full of errors about equipment used and also has errors in the timing of when events happened. His opinion at the end is also not needed. 95% of the problems would have been solved by hiring a military expert to proof the actual equipment used in the battles and the timing of how things actually happened!!0 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Decent; but information not new; can go to ...By Iraq Combat VetDecent ; but information not new ; can go to Osprey and find more reliable information on subjects.1 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Very imaginative authorBy KurdajAfter finishing the book; I wonder if the author wishes he could have written about something different; but there was only money in writing about this topic; so the author took the assignment and then shoe-horned his own opinion in at the end. Up until the last chapter; the narrative is coherent; entertaining; and informative. But that last step is a doozy.Basically; it comes down to how history has changed warfare forever; to the point that war is no longer sustainable in the way the West is now doing it. The weapons are too destructive; expensive; and mean-spirited to be employed for much longer. It was different in simpler times when to kill another man; you had to meet them eye-to-eye; and generals had to more-or-less field an equal force as the enemy. Now; a single technician can annihilate an entire nation-state from anywhere in the world. This is a game-changing transformation.It means that the culture of annihilation practiced by our military and government is no longer appropriate. Restraint in the use of force must be exercised. Branding an entire group as "the enemy" and then blithely allowing that group's destruction to happen as a result of "collateral damage;" or some other sanitized cliche because of how little the military is accountable for their own havoc will not succeed anymore. Not only will the public not tolerate seeing pictures of vast swathes of devastation; but basic human decency should dictate that our soldiers use the minimum amount of violence necessary to achieve victory.The author points out that even the goal of victory is a misleading and futile endeavor; because what is victory? Is it the death of anyone who disagrees with Western politics enough to pick up a gun; or just the acquisition of a peace treaty? Does a situation suddenly become "ok" when representatives sign a paper promising they won't commit these atrocities anymore (but you can't come back and check up on us)?Especially the last few pages of the last chapter; my hi-liter was getting a serious work-out. There's some intense fodder for some debate about the virtues of war; or if ever war is a viable alternative to conflict resolution. I disagree with the author on some points - mostly based on circumstantial evidence. But that's the problem - reality; like the enemy; gets to vote on the success of your plan; whether you like it or not.
