Destruction of myths. Destruction of myths about medieval armor, weapons, their purpose and durability

Everything that you know perfectly well, and therefore are not even going to read the post, but still.

Columbus proved that the earth is round

Judging by the book by the American author Irving Washington, it was so. Everyone thought the Earth was flat, but Columbus convinced everyone otherwise. In fact, from the 4th century BC. no one thought that the Earth looks like a flat pancake. Columbus, however, could not prove that the Earth was round, since he himself did not believe in it! He believed that the Earth was pear-shaped. He has never been to America, and only got to the Bahamas, which are exactly pear-shaped.

Even if you believe in higher powers (weakness, especially on Monday mornings), then with a thorough study of the Bible, you will not find anywhere that Eve ate an apple, and not a pineapple, a banana or even a coconut. It features a humble "fruit". Nobody argues, maybe it was an apple.

Everyone is just sure that Newton uttered a wonderful law after it flew into his tower. And how not to believe - in his essay on Newton, Voltaire himself told about it! And he could find out only from one source who possessed the information before the publication of the essay - from Newton's sister, Catherine Conduit.

Mickey drew Yub Iwerks, who was incredibly fast at drawing and was invaluable as a cartoonist. But when the voice acting appeared - yes, Disney personally began to speak for Mickey.

In 1766, Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote about an event that supposedly happened 25 years earlier. Supposedly, when Marie Antoinette found out that people in the French countryside did not have enough bread, she offered them to eat cakes. The problem is that in those years Mary was 11 years old and still lived in her homeland in Austria.

Van Gogh, who during his life hardly sold one canvas (people of that time understood the quality of his paintings many times better), before committing suicide, he allegedly decided to start with the ear. However, I sawed off not everything, but a tiny piece of the left lobe. What can you not do drunk ...

Many are convinced (at the suggestion of school teachers) - who realized the ambitions that arose due to the inferiority complex associated with growth. In fact, his height was 168 cm, which is higher than that of the average Frenchman in those years.

Sir Walter Reilly is an explorer, ladies' man and one of the most enigmatic and mythological figures in English history. In modern portraits, he is painted as an exceptionally handsome man, although no real portraits of him have been found. He was considered a ladies' man, and, allegedly, liked the English Queen Elizabeth I. Is it true that he threw his cloak into a puddle so that the queen could cross it? Not true. It is true that he did not return from a trip to America with the first potatoes and tobacco in English history. Although it is said that Reilly introduced the potato in 1586, the first potato crop was actually harvested in Spain in 1585, after which it quickly spread throughout Europe and even crossed the English Channel. In 1560, tobacco was brought to France by Jean Nicot (nicotine got its name from his surname). So smokers all over the world are wrong to accuse Sir Walter Reilly of spreading a bad habit.

Everyone knows two things about Magellan: that he traveled around the world, and that during this trip he was killed in the Philippines. One excludes the other. In fact, Magellan passed exactly half the way: the journey was completed by Juan Sebastian Elcano, his deputy.

William Shakespeare is known as the greatest playwright in human history. However, most of his plays were not his own creations - rather, creative adaptations of stories, stories and traditions. The play "The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark", according to historians, was based on the ancient Scandinavian tradition.

1,093 patents: Edison is a great inventor. But most of his inventions were made by unknown employees of his laboratory. And besides, a certain Davey Humphrey discovered electric light four decades before Edison was born. His lamp could only burn for 12 hours in a row, and Edison only had to find a suitable filament material so that the lamp could burn constantly. Yes, an achievement, but not a discovery.

December 25 - Christmas. But there is no evidence in the Bible or anywhere else that Jesus was born on this particular day. But why was December 25 made Jesus' birthday? Maybe because on this day the Greeks celebrated the day of the god Mitros, born of a virgin, and at the same time it was the Day of the Shepherd?

Everyone knows that George Washington was the first of 43 US presidents. But no! The first was Peyton Randolph, who had been chosen by the revolutionary Congress. His first step in high office was the creation of the Continental Army to defend against British troops and the appointment to the post of commander-in-chief ... General Washington! Replaced Randolph in 1781 by John Hanson, who sent a congratulatory letter to George Washington after his victory at the Battle of Yorktown and signed "I, John Hancock, President of America." And Washington became the first popularly elected president of the United States - but the fifteenth in a row.

Everything that you know perfectly well, and therefore are not even going to read the post, but still.

Judging by the book by the American author Irving Washington, it was so. Everyone thought the Earth was flat, but Columbus convinced everyone otherwise. In fact, from the 4th century BC. no one thought that the Earth looks like a flat pancake. Columbus, however, could not prove that the Earth was round, since he himself did not believe in it! He believed that the Earth was pear-shaped. He has never been to America, and only got to the Bahamas, which are exactly pear-shaped.

Even if you believe in higher powers (weakness, especially on Monday mornings), then with a thorough study of the Bible, you will not find anywhere that Eve ate an apple, and not a pineapple, a banana or even a coconut. It features a humble "fruit". Nobody argues, maybe it was an apple.

Everyone is just sure that Newton uttered a wonderful law after it flew into his tower. And how not to believe - in his essay on Newton, Voltaire himself told about it! And he could find out only from one source who possessed the information before the publication of the essay - from Newton's sister, Catherine Conduit.

Mickey drew Yub Iwerks, who was incredibly fast at drawing and was invaluable as a cartoonist. But when the voice acting appeared - yes, Disney personally began to speak for Mickey.

In 1766, Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote about an event that supposedly happened 25 years earlier. Supposedly, when Marie Antoinette found out that people in the French countryside did not have enough bread, she offered them to eat cakes. The problem is that in those years Mary was 11 years old and still lived in her homeland in Austria.

Van Gogh, who during his life hardly sold one canvas (people of that time understood the quality of his paintings many times better), before committing suicide, he allegedly decided to start with the ear. However, I sawed off not everything, but a tiny piece of the left lobe. What can you not do drunk ...

Many are convinced (at the suggestion of school teachers) - who realized the ambitions that arose due to the inferiority complex associated with growth. In fact, his height was 168 cm, which is higher than that of the average Frenchman in those years.

Sir Walter Reilly is an explorer, ladies' man and one of the most enigmatic and mythological figures in English history. In modern portraits, he is painted as an exceptionally handsome man, although no real portraits of him have been found. He was considered a ladies' man, and, allegedly, liked the English Queen Elizabeth I. Is it true that he threw his cloak into a puddle so that the queen could cross it? Not true. It is true that he did not return from a trip to America with the first potatoes and tobacco in English history. Although it is said that Reilly introduced the potato in 1586, the first potato crop was actually harvested in Spain in 1585, after which it quickly spread throughout Europe and even crossed the English Channel. In 1560, tobacco was brought to France by Jean Nicot (nicotine got its name from his surname). So smokers all over the world are wrong to accuse Sir Walter Reilly of spreading a bad habit.

Everyone knows two things about Magellan: that he traveled around the world, and that during this trip he was killed in the Philippines. One excludes the other. In fact, Magellan passed exactly half the way: the journey was completed by Juan Sebastian Elcano, his deputy.

William Shakespeare is known as the greatest playwright in human history. However, most of his plays were not his own creations - rather, creative adaptations of stories, stories and traditions. The play "The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark", according to historians, was based on the ancient Scandinavian tradition.

1,093 patents: Edison is a great inventor. But most of his inventions were made by unknown employees of his laboratory. And besides, a certain Davey Humphrey discovered electric light four decades before Edison was born. His lamp could only burn for 12 hours in a row, and Edison only had to find a suitable filament material so that the lamp could burn constantly. Yes, an achievement, but not a discovery.

December 25 - Christmas. But there is no evidence in the Bible or anywhere else that Jesus was born on this particular day. But why was December 25 made Jesus' birthday? Maybe because on this day the Greeks celebrated the day of the god Mitros, born of a virgin, and at the same time it was the Day of the Shepherd?

Everyone knows that George Washington was the first of 43 US presidents. But no! The first was Peyton Randolph, who had been chosen by the revolutionary Congress. His first step in high office was the creation of the Continental Army to defend against British troops and the appointment to the post of commander-in-chief ... General Washington! Replaced Randolph in 1781 by John Hanson, who sent a congratulatory letter to George Washington after his victory at the Battle of Yorktown and signed "I, John Hancock, President of America." And Washington became the first popularly elected president of the United States - but the fifteenth in a row.

Original taken from vsekh in Myth Busting on Thursdays ...

The myth of the ordination of Timothy

I remember a dozen years ago when I was shocked when I heard a series of sermons in the Baptist church on the so-called "New Testament priesthood." It was assumed that in the Church of the New Testament there should be special people who should be called "priesthood" and only they have the right to perform "sacred rites", such as: baptism, communion, marriage, blessing children, consecration of houses of prayer, etc.

Then it seemed to me that this violates the fundamental Protestant belief about the universal priesthood of believers, since again, according to the Old Testament model, it obliges us to have mediators between us and God, while there is only one such Mediator in the New Testament - Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2: 5) ... I still believe that although each member of the Church has his own unique gift, our status before God is absolutely the same and there is no need to wait for an ordained minister to perform, for example, the breaking of bread. We have different functions in God's economy, but the same status before God.

However, this is not the point. (We will talk about this some other time).

But one thing at that time especially alarmed me - the verse was used as a substantiation of the doctrine of the "caste of New Testament priests":

Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the priesthood. (1 Tim. 4:14)

It is interesting that the word "priesthood" here for some reason translated the word "πρεσβυτέριον" - "presbytery", "council of elders" or "council of elders." The word “elder” in the New Testament is very often not translated at all, or it is translated as “elder”, or as “elder”, therefore it is strange that it is in this place that the text seems to be veiled.

And I wondered why the Orthodox translators went for such a substitution?

The answer is simple: to support the Orthodox myth that Timothy was the bishop of Ephesus, and therefore belonged to the highest of the levels of the priesthood.

After all, an Orthodox and Catholic Bishop is a Bishop - the head of several local churches. He, as a rule, is the one in charge of the churches of large regions, consisting of several cities.

And according to Orthodox teaching, a bishop cannot be ordained by presbyters, but only by bishops. Elders, from the point of view of Orthodox theology, generally have no right to perform ordination (ordination), so the Orthodox translator had no choice but to hide the clear teaching of Scripture about the opposite.

The point is that the New Testament makes no distinction at all between the ministry of a bishop and a presbyter. These are synonymous words. "Bishop" - overseer, overseer. “Elder” is an elder. These words are often used interchangeably in the New Testament. (And some of the Orthodox scholars agree with this).

For example, in Acts, in chapter 20, Paul “sent to Ephesus, ... elders church "(Acts 20:17), and immediately in verse 28 names the same group of leaders bishops : “Pay attention therefore to yourself and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (in Greek “bishopus”), shepherd the Church of God and God, which He acquired for Himself with His own blood. " (Acts 20:28).

In the letter to Titus, Paul commands: “... that you should complete the unfinished business and put elders , as I ordered you: if someone is blameless, the husband of one wife, he has faithful children, not reproached for debauchery or disobedience. For bishop must be blameless as God's steward ... ”(Titus 1: 5-7)

Thus, we see that the bishop and the presbyter are one person.

In New Testament times, local churches were ruled either by apostles and prophets or by bishops and deacons.

This is evidenced by the ancient Christian text “Didache”: “Consecrate for yourselves bishops and deacons who are worthy of the Lord, meek and unmerciful men, both true and tried, for they also fulfill for you the ministry of prophets and teachers. Therefore, do not despise them, for they are your venerable ones on a par with the prophets and apostles. " (Didache. 15: 1,2)

Those. in every local church there were SEVERAL bishops, who were sometimes called elders.

The New Testament also testifies to this: “Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with bishops and deacons ... "(Phil. 1: 1) (It can be seen that the Philippian church did not know the three-level hierarchy). And Acts 15 tells us that the Jerusalem church was ruled by the apostles and elders... Thus, we again see the interchangeability of the terms "bishop" and "presbyter". We especially note that there were several of them in the local church, not just one.

However, by the second century, significant changes were made to the New Testament terminology. Mainly thanks to Ignatius of Antioch. For some reason he decided that there should be one chief among the presbyters-bishops. And so he should be called a bishop, and the rest presbyters.

It should be noted that even Ignatius does not yet speak of the bishop as the ruler over SEVERAL local churches. According to Ignatius, a bishop is simply the chief presbyter in one local church. Judge for yourself:

“Therefore, as the Lord without the Father, in his unity with Him, did nothing either by Himself or through the apostles, so you do not do anything without the bishop and elders ... but in general meeting may you have one prayer, one petition, one mind, one hope in love and in blameless joy. " (To Magnesians Chapter 7) Here we see that the bishop and the elders are members of the same congregation.

Ignatius also does not build a clear hierarchy: bishop - presbyter - deacon - as modern Orthodox and Catholics do.

“... since the bishop presides over the place of God, the elders take the place of the council of the apostles, and the deacons, my sweetest ones, have been entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was before the Father's age, and finally appeared visibly. Therefore, all, having entered into cohabitation with God, respect one another, and no one looks to his neighbor in the flesh, but always love one another in Jesus Christ. Let there be nothing between you that could divide you; but be in union with the bishop and those who sit, in the image and doctrine of incorruption. " (To The Magnesians, Chapter 6)

We see that according to Ignatius, the bishop is like God, the elders are like the apostles, and the deacons are like Jesus Christ (!).

Strange, isn't it?

Is Christ, from the point of view of Ignatius, lower than the apostles? No way! Therefore, Ignatius is not talking about hierarchy, but about functions: the bishop rules (presides), the elders teach (perform the function of a council), and deacons serve like Christ (and even Ignatius himself is clearly more in love with the deacon's ministry - the sweetest to me).

And his bishop is inseparable from the elders and deacons, just as God is inseparable from the apostles and Christ: the beautifully woven crown of your presbytery and in God by deacons. Obey bishop and each other how Jesus Christ obeyed the Father in the flesh, and the apostles obeyed Christ, the Father and the Spirit, so that physical and spiritual unity might be together. " (To The Magnesians, Chapter 13)

However, Ignatius did his job - he gave rise to a change in the New Testament terminology (he always has one bishop, not several) and, as a result, to the birth of the myth of a three-stage, hierarchical priesthood. This myth was taken up, and later Irenaeus of Lyons elevated the role of bishops even more. And off we go ...

The myth led to a distortion of the text of Scripture in the synodal translation, as well as to a distortion of relations in the local church and its governance. And even some Protestants, unfortunately, suddenly became carried away by this myth.

I'm sure it doesn't have to be this way!

Pavel Begichev pavel_begichev

I'm afraid you attribute to Ignatius the creation of what he only states, as having been created in the Church by his time. And the fact that the hierarchical system existing today took shape in time, and was not an initial given, is not at all denied by the orthodox Churches. Well, that's not counting the marginal freaks. Those can really believe that already with the apostles of the ball, the ROC or the Pope of Rome (depending on the church affiliation of the Frick).

The structure of the hierarchy in the Church took shape at an early stage, when Christians were still persecuted and their truth could not be questioned even by neo-Protestants, who oppose themselves to the already state-controlled Church of the post-Constantine period, with their councils, dogmas, popes and patriarchs. Therefore, it is not very reasonable for neo-Protestants to criticize the three-part system of hierarchy as something that violates biblical norms. But it would not hurt to criticize the excessive sacralization of the higher hierarchy, although such criticism is more appropriate from orthodox theologians. However, there may be some benefit from external criticism.

Neo-Protestants can create any structure of government and ministry for themselves. It is up to them to understand what is "right" based on their own interpretations of Scripture. They can even live in the likeness of the Jerusalem primitive community, a commune, when there were no elders or deacons, and the people sold their property and gave it to a common fund collected and distributed by the apostles. It's another matter - where will you get the apostles? Appoint yourself? Or will there be those who will appoint themselves? However, the practice of amateur pastorship and apostleship is a natural practice of neo-Protestantism. Without this, there would not have been neo-Protestantism itself, as well as marginal, pseudo-Christian sects, such as "Jehovah's Witnesses".

In a strict sense, the main difference between Orthodox Churches and neo-Protestantism is precisely in the origin of the hierarchy, and not in its structure. You probably know that the orthodox assert the truth of their hierarchy on the succession from the apostles, while the hierarchy (and it certainly is) of the neo-Protestants arose in an independent order. Some James three hundred years ago, or some Vasya last year read the Bible, realized that he was chosen by God and had the mission of restoring the Church and declared himself a "prophet", having gathered around himself a "church", and from this James or from Vasya there is a continuity with certain neo-Protestants.

Therefore, the apostolic succession in the Church is where it is a subject for discussion. And the structure of the church hierarchy is just an application. The structure can be absolutely any, even three times artificial and new, but the succession of the Church from the apostles cannot be bought in a store.

How many legs does an octopus have?

DELUSION: 8
REALLY: 2

With the help of two rear tentacles, he moves along the seabed, while the other six eat. As a result, today's marine biologists tend to classify octopuses as animals with a pair of legs and six arms.

Additionally: the octopus's tentacles contain two-thirds of the octopus's brain - about 50 million neurons - while the remaining third is shaped like a donut and resides in the octopus's head, or "brain cloak." each of the limbs has great independence. The torn off tentacle continues to crawl and (in some species) live for several months. The hand (or leg) of the octopus lives by its own mind.

WHAT WAS BEFORE - CHICKEN OR EGG?

DELUSION: CHICKEN
REALLY: EGG

As geneticist JBS Haldane (1892-1964) observed, "The most frequently asked question is," Which came first, the chicken or the egg? " The fact that it is still being asked suggests one of two things: either many people have not been taught the theory of evolution, or they simply don’t believe in it. ”

Birds evolved from reptiles, which means that the first bird hatched from an egg - laid by one of the reptiles.

Additionally: to find out what color a particular chicken will lay an egg, look at its earrings. Chickens with white earrings lay white eggs, with red ones - brown ones. The color of a chicken egg depends solely on the breed of bird - it has nothing to do with the feed.

HOW MANY STATES ARE THERE IN THE USA?

DELUSION: 50
REALLY: 46

And Massachusetts, Kentucky, Virginia and Pennsylvania, which are officially commonwealths, are misleading us.
The fact is that this status does not give them any special constitutional powers, since they themselves chose this word after the end of the 1775-1783 War of Independence. These commonwealths called themselves that, in order to make it clear that they no longer prefer to be colonies ruled by the English crown, but have become a state, which is ruled "with the common consent of the people."

Virginia was part of the first thirteen American states and was the first to proclaim itself a commonwealth in 1776. Since then, the American national flag has thirteen red stripes. Pennsylvania and Massachusetts joined as a commonwealth soon after, and Kentucky, originally a Virginia county, declared itself a commonwealth in 1792.

WHICH ANIMAL EVER LIVING ON OUR PLANET IS THE MOST DANGEROUS?

DELUSION: COBRA, SHARK, BIG CATS
REALLY: KOMARS

A good half of the people who have died in the entire history of mankind - something about 45 billion - were killed by female mosquitoes (males only bite plants).
The mosquito (or mosquito) carries more than a hundred potentially fatal diseases, including malaria, yellow fever, dengue, encephalitis, filariasis, elephantiasis (elephantiasis). Even today, every twelve seconds, this insect kills one of us. Today, there are 2,500 known mosquito species, 400 of which are members of the anopheles family, and 40 of them are capable of transmitting malaria.

Additionally: female mosquitoes are attracted by moisture, milk, carbon dioxide, body warmth and movement. Sweaty people and pregnant women are much more likely to be bitten.

HOW MANY CRABS NEEDED TO MAKE A KILOGRAM OF CRAB STICKS?

DELUSION: FROM 10 AND MORE
REALLY: NOT ONE

Their recipe appeared in 1970 in Japan and has remained practically unchanged since then.

From time immemorial, crab meat has been an integral attribute of Japanese national cuisine. And its quantity is steadily decreasing. This, in turn, leads to an increase in the prices of crab meat. And Japanese chefs began to search hard for a substitute for the delicacy.

They took the Kamaboko dish as a basis. For its preparation, fillets of fish of the cod family are used, their meat is pure white. The fillet is chopped and then pounded. It turns out the so-called minced surimi. Potatoes, soy sauce, starch, egg powder and flavorings are added to it.

From the mass, oblong sticks are formed and evaporated. During this procedure, fat is removed from the meat. The process is completed by the application of a strip of food coloring, which gives the sticks the characteristic pink color inherent in crab meat. That, in fact, is all.

So, apart from the name, there is nothing crab in the product!

FROM WHOM HAS BEEN GOVERNED?

DELUSION: FROM MONKEYS
IN FACT: HUMAN AND HUMAN-LIKE MONKEYS ARE COMMON ANCESTOR

It is a common delusion of mankind that man is descended from monkeys, although this is far from the case. And not even from anthropoids.

The theory that man descended from a monkey was put forward, as you know, by Charles Darwin, who had only a church education - he was a Protestant priest, and not as a biologist. Who would need to impose such a theory? The answer is simple - whoever has the desire and money for PR in newspapers.

The great ape and Homo sapiens descended from one common ancestor, but until now scientists have not been able to find it. This elusive boy lived - from 8 to 5 million years ago in the Pliocene era.
Further along the chain, this creature came from a squirrel-like tupaya, that of a hedgehog, that of a sea star. Recent comparisons between the genomes of humans and our closest relative, the chimpanzee, suggest that we split much later than originally thought. This means, before we finally dispersed 5.4 million years ago, we most likely interbred and produced a hybrid species that has never been noted anywhere and is now extinct.

Despite the fact that not a single evidence that exists in our time excludes the fact that a person could have happened anywhere on the planet, the African theory of the spread of the human race is still considered the most plausible.
Research by scientists at the genetic level confirms that one of the first populations outside of Africa were the indigenous inhabitants of the Andaman Islands. The islanders have lived in absolute isolation for 60 thousand years - longer than the aborigines of Australia.

In our time, the indigenous Andamans are less than 400 people. About half of them belong to two large tribes: the Jarawa and the Sentinelese, who have practically no contact with the outside world. This group of about one hundred Sentinelese leads such a secluded life that no one has yet been able to learn their language.

Other Andaman languages ​​form their own group - the oldest in South Asia and not related to any other language group. Their dialect has only five numbers: "one", "two", "one more", "a few more" and "all." At the same time, they have as many as twelve words to describe all kinds of states of ripeness of the fruit, two of which simply cannot be translated.

The Andamans are one of two tribal groups in the world that have never learned how to make fire to this day (the other group is the Ake pygmies who live in Central Africa). Instead of making fire, they have an ingenious procedure for storing and transporting smoldering woods and burning coals in earthen vessels. In a similar state, coals have been maintained for millennia and, most likely, originated from prehistoric lightning strikes.

Some may think it is unusual, but the indigenous inhabitants of the Andaman Islands have a rather familiar concept of God for us. Their supreme deity Puluga is the invisible, permanent, immortal, omniscient Creator of all that exists, with the exception of evil; he gets angry when we sin and comforts the needy. In punishment to the people for their sins, Pulugu sent a storm and a great flood.
In 2004, the tsunami hit the Andaman Islands with all its strength, however, as we know, none of the native tribes there were practically not affected.

This review does not pretend to be the truth of the last resort, it was rather created in order to spur interest in this topic and cast doubt on some of the stereotypes that have developed.

Interestingly, many take the story of the destruction of Rome by vandals seriously. It is a myth. First, by the time the vandals arrived, most of the historical monuments had collapsed on their own. The Romans were very practical, and it was not profitable to keep track of the ancient monuments. Secondly, during the robbery of Rome by vandals, not a single inhabitant and not a single building was damaged. Mostly because no one resisted them. The vandals simply quietly entered the city, took as many values ​​as they could carry (including many books, mainly on tactics and strategy), took away a couple of thousand prisoners, and quietly left. The prisoners were kept in good conditions, and then released for a ransom. By the way, the daughter of a noble captive later married the son of the leader who organized the raid. And rumors about the cruelty of the vandals and the destruction of Rome were spread by several robbed nobles. Therefore, when you hear hooligans called vandals, always ask not to offend the vandals. They were quite civilized people.

The first stereotype - "unwashed barbarians"
Very often in the literature, when describing barbarian peoples, the general rudeness of life and continuous unsanitary conditions are mentioned. They say that barbarians wash only when they get caught in the rain, etc. In the Germanic language one of the synonyms for barbarian literally translates as “unkempt”. Which sounded very funny when archaeologists found 6 combs in the burial of an ancient German "unkempt".
Also, some historians, narrow specialists on ancient civilizations, and in their wake popular literature, exposes Roman public baths in opposition to the “barbaric” unsanitary conditions. At the same time, without specifying that all these baths were located in elite areas, where most of the population of cities was not allowed by the guards (not to mention the countryside). And also, they do not always remember that the Romans did not know how to make soap. Therefore, in order to wash off the dirt, they smeared themselves with olive oil, and then scraped this oil off themselves with a special stick.

Naturally, from such "enlightenment" many decided that the barbarians did not wash at all. At the same time, both archeology and the surviving written sources say the opposite. It is known that the Celts regularly visited the baths, and naturally washed themselves every day (which is understandable). And, which is characteristic, the Celts knew how to make soap, and they used it. Why the Romans, having conquered the Gauls, did not adopt such a simple invention is difficult to explain. Although perhaps they were simply too proud to use the barbarian invention (which for some reason did not prevent them from copying the barbarian weapon).

In another era, other barbarians - namely the Vikings * - in the minds of the Englishmen and Franks robbed by them, were mere savages. Therefore, many modern authors (and behind them - directors and game developers) endow them with truly savage features - they are described as rude uneducated people, respectively unwashed, shaggy and unkempt, dressed in rags, if not in skins ... At the same time, if you carefully read the very same English chronicles, where they are called savages, a completely different image emerges. In particular, the chronicler says about the Viking settlers that they, they say, have come in large numbers here, are settling down to live according to their alien customs. And they, bastards, knocked out all the beautiful girls of our guys, because, you see, these Vikings go to the bathhouse every other day, comb and trim their beards (in context, the British themselves did not do all this. And the Franks, too). If you look into the Scandinavian sagas (in which the Scandinavians describe their daily life fairly reliably), other details are also revealed. For example, that the Scandinavians always washed their hands before eating, which the same British and French did not do for another 3 centuries after the “civilization” of the Vikings.
And in addition to basic hygiene, barbarian peoples cared about their appearance.

By the way, only in Scandinavia and the Slavs in Europe at that time had normal toilets. And also only they brushed their teeth.

The second stereotype - "barbarians in skins"
Often in the cinema, various barbarian peoples (Gauls, Vikings ...) “dress” in some kind of tattered rough rags, for example, sewn scraps of skins or clothes made of coarse gray fabric. In general, homeless people are homeless. And civilized people there mostly flaunt in white robes, or other luxurious suits. And if, for example, in films about the Romans (see "Julius Caesar and the war with the Gauls") this is explained by the laws of the genre (they are bad guys there), then in films about barbarians it is more than strange. There are also very funny mistakes in this area: while reconstructing a Viking's attire from a plate of helmet decoration (2x2 cm, if not less), it was assumed that he was wearing one “skin” up to mid-thigh. For a long time, both in paintings and in films, they were portrayed in such clothes. Although almost immediately it became clear that this was a mistake - on the plate the Viking was dressed in leather leggings, and a jacket, which, due to the small size of the picture, could not be drawn to scale, and as a result acquired the appearance of a shaggy skin. I wonder how these artists / filmmakers envisioned wearing such clothes in a northern climate?

There is also a tradition, when depicting Viking raids, to dress them up in the same rough outfits of monotonous dull colors - to give a savage look. At the same time, archeology and chronicles speak of something else. First, the Scandinavians did not like faded colors. The nature of the north is very monotonous for most of the year, so it is understandable that they strive for rather bright, even motley, colors in their clothes. In addition, tribal signs and charm patterns were always embroidered on clothes. The Scandinavian embroidery of those times is very beautiful. In addition, everyone who could afford it wore jewelry. And as amulets, and as signs of wealth, and just for beauty. Warriors wore jewelry as signs of their victories, and to provoke opponents - the more gold, the more enemies will try to take it away, and accordingly, the more glory a warrior can receive in case of victory. And if in computer games Viking jewelry is depicted as thick and rough, then in reality archaeologists have discovered very elegant works of local craftsmen. It is enough to look at the pictures of these things to be sure.

Viking clothing was by no means as primitive as it is often portrayed. For example, in the sagas, a cloak with sleeves and fasteners along the entire length is mentioned (in other words, a coat), pants with belt loops (almost a modern look, and not tied with a rope, as some believe), a dress with a cutout on the chest (neckline) ... And also in Denmark the tomb of an 18-year-old girl was discovered, the mummified remains of which were dressed in a top and a mini-skirt. Simply put, their clothes did not strongly resemble those rags that are usually associated with the "dark ages".

Other barbarians, namely the Celts, also cared about their appearance. For example: the Celts are for the most part prone to dark hair, but they consider blonde the most beautiful, and thanks to this they became one of the first inventors of hair dye. It is also known that they independently invented cosmetics. So, one Roman poet reproaches his girlfriend for the fact that she, like the barbaric Gauls, uses cosmetics. Naturally, the proud Romans considered it shameful to adopt the customs of some barbarians, but the Romans did not seem to care much. Few details have survived about this, but it is known for sure that the Celtic girls did their own manicure - in the ancient Irish saga, the girl, describing her grief, says “I don’t paint my nails purple”.

The Celts were generally great aesthetes. Even in combat, they considered show to be as important as efficiency. Therefore, many of them went into battle in beautiful, elegant clothes, without helmets (so as not to cover their fashionable hairstyle), or in decorative ornamented helmets, and with the same decorative, richly inlaid shields. And the chariots of tribal leaders were often completely covered with gold and silver plates, painted with the most skillful intricate pattern.

For some reason, by the end of the Antiquity era, the original Celtic culture was preserved only in Ireland, and partly among other island Celts. Often in articles describing the early Middle Ages, you can read about a poor existence, dirt and disease. And so it was. In western and southern Europe. The extreme Celtic west, Scandinavia and eastern Europe (in the last 2 points there was a very similar culture, so I will not repeat myself), in such descriptions they usually do not take into account. And many, unknowingly, consider these lands savage.

The third stereotype - "wild / illiterate barbarians"
In literature and cinema, barbarians are often portrayed as savages living in rough huts and eking out a wretched, primitive existence. It is clear that there is no talk at all about any kind of education or culture. Sometimes the authors emphasize their barbaric "severity" with contempt for learning and sophisticated art.

What does history say about this? The authors of that time said the following about the ancient Celts:
“In their speeches, they are laconic and allegorical, they often resort to exaggerations in order to exalt themselves, and to humiliate others, they are used to threatening, boasting and exalting themselves, but they are sharp in mind and tend to learn.”Diodorus of Siculus.

“If you convince them, then they are easily accessible to considerations of benefit, so that they are able to perceive not only education in general, but also science.”Strabo.

“They are said to memorize many verses, and therefore some remain in the Druidic school for twenty years. They even consider it a sin to write these verses, while in almost all other cases, namely in public and private records, they use the Greek alphabet."Caesar about the druids.

So we see that the Celts were not stupid savages at all. Although most of their literature and science (at least the Continental Celts) has been lost, as religious taboos forbade writing them down. Although merchants and the upper classes of society appeared to be literate, science was oral, and passed by word of mouth for centuries. On the continent, this continuity was destroyed by the Romans along with the Druids. On the British Isles, it was partially preserved until it was finally decided to write it down. The amount of this information is simply enormous, considering that it was memorized. Extant specimens include many literary works as well as highly elaborate statutes. The language of their works is complex and emotional, and the laws are very competently drafted, and take into account a lot of details (although experts note that they are written in a very confusing manner. It is believed that this is the sub-language of the filid caste of lawyers. Also in the literature dedicated to this "language" use it to avoid eavesdropping).

The core of the Celtic intelligentsia was the Druids. They were mainly recruited among the aristocracy, and underwent special long-term training in the druidic academies. It is known that the entire aristocracy of the Celts underwent at least an initial Druidic education. Filids and bards also studied in special educational institutions. Scientists in the Celtic society were very respected, they were protected by the law, and everywhere they were warmly welcomed. Druids were not only priests, but also teachers, historians. There were druidic communities specializing in economics, medicine, astronomy.

The Celts used ancient writing, but before the adoption of Christianity in Ireland, a purely Celtic alphabet - Ogama - also appeared. Ogamic writing was used mainly for ritual purposes.

Vikings are also often described as uneducated savages attacking enlightened Europe. Sometimes they are even credited with a hatred of literacy. This is despite the fact that Western Europe itself was then uneducated. Despite the fact that its main population is the former Germanic tribes, some of which already had their own runic writing at that time, with the adoption of the Latin alphabet and a new way of life, their education experienced a decline. Basically only monks were literate, and kings did not even know how to sign.

In Scandinavia, hundreds of funerary runestones of that time were found, as well as many household items and weapons with runic inscriptions. The sagas also mention letters and other records carved on wooden tablets.

The literacy rate among the Vikings was higher than in the Europe they robbed. And they were proud of it! Literacy is one of their most useful skills. In addition, the Vikings were quite curious, and traveling a lot, they brought home information about distant lands and affairs of bygone days. For example about the Trojan War or the past of Rome. And also a lot of scientific knowledge. By the end of the Viking Age, the Scandinavian countries (especially Iceland) had become one of the centers of culture and science. Being a very inquisitive tribe, they themselves learned a lot. Especially about such vital things as nautical navigation and medicine. They invented sufficiently accurate instruments for measuring time and latitude (measuring longitude, given the speed of their ships, was unnecessary). On the shores of Norway there is a runestone, the inscription on which says that by sailing from it strictly to the west, you can get to such and such a bay in Greenland. Indeed, that bay is located strictly to the west, with an accuracy of fractions of a degree.

Also, the Scandinavians developed medicine (especially wound healing). The sagas mention the dynasties of healers who passed on knowledge from generation to generation and accumulated experience for many years. And the results were very tangible. It is even known about surgical operations, for example, the removal of stones from the abdominal cavity (the patient, which is characteristic, survived).

The story of one farm laborer is also noteworthy. His name was Oddi, he was hired as a fisherman, and in his free time he loved to look at the sky, watch the movement of the sun, moon and stars. For this he was nicknamed the Star Odd. He wrote down his observations, carried out calculations, compiled tables of the movement of the luminaries, and sold them to the ship's navigators. Some of his notes have survived. Their analysis shows a rather high accuracy and complexity of the calculations. Stellar Oddi is now considered the greatest European astronomer of his time.
Also, the Vikings independently developed a calendar consisting of 365 days, and through many years of observations invented leap years. They compiled very accurate calendars for many years to come, up to several centuries.

Among the Vikings, oratory and, especially, poetry were highly respected. The surviving skaldic verses are quite remarkable. In addition to very complex systems of rhyming and poetic forms, they also used a unique system of consonance. In addition, they loved to use various allegories in poetry - köning. Köning is the substitution of a single word for a phrase, often containing a reference to mythology or history. For example, shields were called "tiles of Valhalla" (Valgala is a banquet hall for dead heroes, the tiles of which were shields). There were also double könings, for example, "bowstring snake" - an arrow, "bowstring arrow thrower" - a warrior. And there were 6 (!) Multiple könings - “the fire thrower of the witch's blizzard of the moon, the horse of the ship's sheds”. “The horse of the ship sheds” is the ship, “the moon of the ship” is the shield, “the witch of the shield” is the ax, “the blizzard of the ax” is the battle, “the fire of the battle” is the sword, the “thrower of the sword” is the warrior. All this served as a kind of intellectual game - the listeners had to understand what the author had in mind.

Although the Scandinavian poetry was written down (first on tablets, later on parchment), the best poets memorized everything. Many of these skalds memorized hundreds of their own and others' poems. Some were also famous for their ability to compose poetry, literally speaking in poetry. It was considered very prestigious for anyone to insert into speech hastily composed witty four lines - visas. The Vikings took poetry very seriously - a verse insult was considered doubly offensive, and love lyrics could even be considered an attempt at a love spell (although most poets did not care about this prohibition).

So, this stereotype has no basis. Moreover, it was often the other way around.

The fourth stereotype - "barbarians - pitching"
In literature, cinema and games, a stereotype has taken root that barbarians are healthy, pumped up bumps. Clumsy, clumsy and extremely inept fighters who rely only on physical strength and reckless pressure. In stories describing a person from our time in the past, either a world reminiscent of the early Middle Ages, often a modern person trained in martial arts, or, for example, a former paratrooper, easily copes with “inept savages”. And in the popular scientific literature describing ancient countries, it is often said that the Greeks / Romans, they say, opposed skill to number and brute force. Unfortunately, some of the descendants of those very barbarians also think so. Mainly due to lack of education, or entrenched stereotypes. Such people agree with the widespread opinion, but try to “shield” their ancestors, extolling their heroic power.

So, in the modern view, a barbarian warrior is something extremely huge, with muscles of steel, wide shoulders and a small head. In almost all films and games, the main tactic of the barbarian is to recklessly rush at the enemy with a wild cry, without even thinking about defense. Naturally, there are exceptions, but alas, there are not many of them. This image took root so much that it became a kind of “archetype”. Sometimes you can find discussions in which, for example, the archetype of the barbarian is compared with the archetype of a martial artist (usually the so-called "monk"), or the archetype of a swordsman (naturally, these archetypes are also far from reality).

As part of this work, I consider the Viking martial arts. It should be noted that in this case, by martial arts, I mean mainly the art of hand-to-hand combat, which is historically incorrect - fighting without weapons was not considered a full-fledged martial art until the 19th century. But since the ingrained stereotype connects the concept of martial arts with hand-to-hand combat, then we will start with it.

To begin with, consider an episode from the Scandinavian saga ** (The Saga of Erling's Magnus Blue): After the battle, a certain Orm Konungov Brother lay down to rest. There was no lighting in the house, and the surviving enemy warrior hid in the darkness. When Orm lay down, the warrior rushed at him with an ax, intending to chop off his legs. Orm managed to react, he “quickly picked up his legs and threw them over his head, and the ax sank into the planks of the bench and was firmly stuck in them”. As you can see, the Vikings were not so clumsy. And this is not surprising - armor in those days was quite expensive, and the Scandinavians were not rich. Most made do with homemade armor, usually sturdy leather jackets, sometimes reinforced with sewn-in plates of bone, horn, and sometimes iron. Only princes and large landowners could afford chain mail. And many of them preferred lighter armor, appreciating mobility. (It should be noted here that before the Viking era, during the "Wendel" era, the Scandinavian rulers wore heavier uniforms, but then the fighting style changed). The weapons they used were also quite light - the famous Viking axes weighed no more than 2 kilograms (which is natural - unlike the giant armor-piercing axes of the knights, the Viking axes did not require such penetrating power). In such conditions, agility and dexterity were the key to survival.

Here are some more interesting passages from the sagas:
“There was a man named Tord. He loved to start fistfights with traffickers, and they usually got it from him. And so he agreed with Gunlaug that he would fight with him ... The next morning, when they began to fight, Gunlaug kicked both of Tord's legs, and he fell as if knocked down ”(apparently, not only in the east they knew the“ dragon's tail ”technique). From another saga: “Grettir stood calmly. Tord would fly at him, but Grettir did not even budge. Then Grettir took Tord in his arms, grabbed him by the pants, turned him upside down and threw him over himself, so that he crashed on both shoulder blades. Another interesting episode: the hero of the saga is going to fight with a swindler who was engaged in extortion, to intimidate the victims, he copied the external manifestations of the "berserker rampage" (for example, he bit his shit, as, according to rumor, berserkers did in a rage), "The berserker was sitting on a horse, on his head he had a helmet, and the cheekpieces were not buttoned. He held in front of him a shield with an iron rim, and he looked formidable. He said:
- You will be even more afraid to fight with me if I get angry!
“We’ll wait and see,” said Grettir.
The berserker howled loudly and, bringing the shield to his mouth, began to bite the edge of the shield and grin fiercely. Grettir rushed forward and, leveling with the berserker's horse, would kick on the bottom of the shield. The shield flew into the berserker's mouth and broke his jaw. Grettir grabbed him by the helmet with his left hand and pulled him off the horse, and with his right at the same time grabbed the sword hanging from his belt and hit the berserker in the neck, so that his head flew off his shoulders. In the sagas, the Vikings often use combat acrobatics: in the "saga of the people from the Sandy Shore", it is said that a man named Steinor saved his friend who slipped on the ice during a battle by running up and throwing his shield on him to repel a blow, while while with the other hand he cut off the leg of the opponent who was attacking the friend and at the same moment jumped so that the blow directed at Steinor by the other enemy passed between his legs without causing any harm. In another saga, the Viking jumped, avoiding the blow of the spear, and, before he could land, he broke the spear of the enemy with a kick. The Nyala saga speaks of a certain Gunnar, “skilled in battle. He chopped in battle with a sword with both hands and at the same time threw spears if he wanted. At the same time, he swung his swords so quickly that it seemed that not two, but three swords were flying in the air. There was no equal to him in archery, and he never knew a miss. Fully armed, he could jump more than his height, and he jumped forward as well as back. " It also tells about the soldiers who jumped over the enemies who surrounded them (!).

In their culture, as in many other "barbarian" peoples, due to the surrounding environment, almost all games included an element of military training. Even the simplest ball game. There were also many purely military exercises, for example, "playing with swords" - juggling with three combat knives. The Norse king Olaf, son of Trygvi (considered one of the most skillful warriors of his time) could juggle with knives, walking along the oars of his drakar while rowing.

Many other skillful techniques are mentioned in the sagas, for example, throwing two spears at the same time, with the same dexterity. Or catching a thrown spear on the fly and throwing it back at the enemy.

The Slavs had similar customs. But there is less information about our ancestors. Nevertheless, here is an interesting episode from the epic “Ilya of Muromets and Idolische Poganoe”: “The Tatar did not like these speeches, he grabbed a sharp knife, and how he would let them into Ilya; Ilya himself deviated, waved the knife with his right hand - the knife hit the oak door; ... ”. You can often hear the opinion that the basis of the martial art of the Slavs was wall fighting. Based on the analysis of the latter, many argue that the Slavs, for example, did not evade in battle. It should be borne in mind that wall fighting is a ritual imitation of a battle in a tight formation (in which dodging is generally difficult to accomplish), intended only for hardening the fighting spirit and cohesion of the fighters. In addition, the Slavs did not fight in close formation for a long time. According to the Byzantine sources of the 6th century, the Slavic warriors fought one on one better than the Byzantine ones, but were inferior in combat (like everyone else, by the way). Therefore, the Slavs tried to lure the Byzantines into forests, hilly or rocky places, where the Byzantine line broke down, and then the Slavs fought on their own terms.

What is also interesting, judging by the chronicle material, practically no punches were used in Russia. Instead, they used elbow and palm blows (slaps, slaps). There is no clear explanation for this yet.

Among the Celts, the Irish were famous for the best warriors. Even special martial arts schools are described in the Irish sagas. The Irish warriors practically did not use armor, relying on dexterity and the ability to repel blows with shield and weapons. By the way, the Irish were among the first in Europe to learn to parry blows. Moreover, their parrying technique was very developed - it is not a hard block with a shield that is described, but its withdrawal with the edge. Also mentioned is the reflection by the sword of throwing javelins. Like the Scandinavians, the Irish describe many "fighting techniques". One of the most notable - running up on a spear stuck in the ground, after which the warrior had to somehow stand on its edge. Tellingly, the greatest warrior of the Irish epic, Cuchulainn, is described as a short lad of medium build. He won thanks to agility, dexterity and skill.

The fifth stereotype - "ruthless barbarians"
Also, the typical image of barbarians is complemented by passages about their cruelty, rudeness and aggressiveness. For example, what they write on Wikipedia about Conan: “He boasts of the bloodlust he showed in wars, takes revenge on his offenders with extreme cruelty, is not too picky in means, rude, harsh in words, in other words, he is quite reminiscent of historical“ barbarians ” (Vikings, Germans during the collapse of the Roman Empire, etc.) ". Even in decent publications such statements are found, as a rule, without any arguments, based only on popular opinion.

Barbarians, and in particular the Vikings, are attributed to unmeasured quarrelsomeness. Meanwhile, the Scandinavian sagas and the first codes of their laws (written down in the Viking Age) paint a completely different picture. So, according to both sources, the most terrible curse they considered was "a woman-like husband." Another terrible insult is niding - "cursed", "accursed". Even modern Scandinavian languages ​​are rather poor in curses, and then there were even fewer of them. And this is natural - when for a crooked word you can get an ax on the head, politeness becomes a guarantee of survival. They considered the most worthy response to an insult with a witty poem (which was briefly mentioned earlier).

They also often talk about the low cost of human life in those days. Murders were really treated more easily then than they are now. But, nevertheless, not as much as it is often described. In Scandinavia, courts were already beginning to emerge, and therefore they had to answer for the murder. True, there was no system for enforcing the sentence, and therefore the punishments were mainly limited to a fine in favor of the victim's family, or by declaring the criminal “out of law”. This status deprived a person of any legal rights, such as the right to vote at popular assemblies, as well as any legal protection. That is, just such a person could be killed without any consequences. Usually this status was imposed on a temporary basis. In Iceland, it was possible to cleanse itself before the deadline by killing three of the same exiles. Thus, crime eliminated itself, and citizens received a good incentive to live in peace.

Naturally, self-defense murder was not punished. Just like killing a person who has done a grievous offense, if the killer could prove it. In cinema and literature, there are cases when an offended Viking immediately rushes to take revenge on the offender. But the sagas say that rash revenge is unworthy of a man (especially since the offended one had every right to challenge the offender to a legal duel - holmgang). It is worthy to respond to insults with a cool head, calmly and deliberately. This is of course an idealized picture, but this ideal was generally accepted - refusing to fight was not at all considered cowardice (as it is described now). More interestingly, covering up the crime was also considered shameful for the Vikings. According to the then custom, the killer had to immediately report his deed.

Blood feud was an important deterrent. The Scandinavians lived in family communities, a kind of clans. A person was considered primarily as a member of a particular family. Accordingly, responsibility for the actions of each family member fell on everyone. Sane people realized that their loved ones could suffer for their actions. It was believed that it was better to take revenge on the most worthy member of the murderer's family (which the latter, as a rule, was not). Thus, responsibility for their actions was cultivated.

Another "characteristic" of the Vikings - ruthlessness - is also controversial. According to the sagas, for example, when the blood feud reached the extreme - the burning of an enemy house, the elderly, women and children were allowed to go out. Another interesting example is an archaic custom that was still sometimes practiced during the time of the Vikings: before the battle, the battlefield was fenced off, and the wounded who managed to crawl out of the fence were spared. Generally, quite often it is referred to as the wounded enemy was healed by the victors, and later joined them. Contrary to the opinion that in the culture of the Vikings “strength decides everything, and there is no place for the weak” (and some literally praise such a way of life), historical documents speak of something else. For example, in Iceland there was a special tax (one of the few that existed there) for the maintenance of widows and orphans.

While brutal massacres were the norm in the Viking raids, including against women, children and the elderly, such acts were never a matter of pride.

The sixth stereotype is “the powerlessness of women.”
The typical image of a Viking woman is a powerless, downtrodden creature playing the role of a servant. In contrast, there are Viking warriors - hefty, pumped up, even more rude than the Viking men. Like, only such a woman can prove herself in the cruel world of the Vikings. Again, written sources contradict this image. For example, women could inherit property (in Western Europe, for example, they could not), and having inherited, for example, an estate, a woman became a full-fledged mistress, with all the ensuing rights. Sometimes the wife became the mistress even with her husband alive. And not only estates, but also princedoms (!). In such cases, their children received a "patronymic" not from the name of the father, but from the name of the mother (in Iceland, this custom has been preserved). Also, a woman could, if desired, easily divorce her husband (absolute savagery in Europe at that time). At the same time, she received a third of their common property, plus her dowry. By the way, the Scandinavian laws are called as one of the possible reasons for divorce the husband's wearing of a "feminine" shirt with a cutout (however, the husband could demand a divorce at any time if the wife wore pants). As for the female warriors, they did exist. But given the fighting style of the Vikings described above, they differed little from ordinary women.

Interestingly, according to their customs, prior to their official marriage, under the threat of a fine, kissing, dating, and other courtship were prohibited, not to mention anything more. However, this rule did not apply to victims of raids and slaves.

Also interesting is the Scandinavian slavery system. Unlike the "classical" slavery of Egypt, Greece and Rome, "patriarchal" slavery was practiced in Scandinavia (and Russia). At the same time, the slave was not considered cattle, as in classical slavery, but was equated in the rights of a minor child. It was believed that such a person is not able to live independently, and therefore is in the custody of the owner. The reason for becoming a slave could be captivity (as a manifestation of cowardice unworthy of a free man), or debts (inability to manage the household). Moreover, the responsibility for this offense - the status of a slave - was inherited. According to such views, the slave had the opportunity to be freed by proving his right to freedom. For example, during major wars, slaves were also accepted into the ranks of volunteers, and by killing the enemy they gained freedom. In addition, having worked for his slave, he always received free time, and could, for example, work extra at this time, for money (even from his own master!). Having saved enough money, he could buy himself. And such a system was encouraged - the slave striving for freedom brought much more benefit, and when he was freed, he often rented land from the former owner, and continued to make a profit. Also, a child from a slave and a free man was born free. However, in some regions, only a child from a slave and a free woman received freedom. In Sweden, the bastard became free in both cases. And in Russia a slave who gave birth to her master became free herself.

Naturally, the master had the right to do whatever he wanted with the slave, even kill him. But only if it was for what. Otherwise, it significantly spoiled his reputation, and in those days, honor was very important. Interestingly, in the least populated places, where both slaves and their masters had to work hard, slaves had much more freedom. For example, in Iceland, slaves had the right to carry weapons. In one of the sagas, a case is mentioned when the owner asks (!) From his (!) Slave, his (slave!) Spear. Also in Iceland, a slave had the right to kill anyone who encroached on his wife or daughter - a free man had no right to kill in defense of a slave.

* - in this article the Vikings refer to the population of Scandinavia in the Viking Age (8-12 centuries), which is historically incorrect, but in non-professional literature the habit of using the term “Viking” has taken root in this very sense. In general, "Viking" is "not living like everyone else." “Living like everyone else” - this then meant living on a farm, with his family, going once a month to visit neighbors, and once every six months to a fair. Well, or living in a town in similar conditions. Vikings are: itinerant traders, settlers, just travelers, mercenaries, pirates, robbers, racketeers ... But that's not the point. The bottom line is that this is a profession. And the same Scandinavians did not consider it national at all. They called the Vikings and Saxon pirates, and the Wends who plundered Denmark.

Bookmark.