Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Buller
Nov 6, 2010

A Buttery Pastry posted:

During this period, Denmark was basically covered in forest too, outside the heath landscape in western Jutland. Actually, pretty much all of Europe was significantly more forested than it is now, to the point where you could probably traverse most of it without ever leaving a forest if you wanted to. Villages and farms would basically exist in clearings in the primeval forest, except of course in places where the natural landscape was not forest, such as south-eastern Ukraine.

This is not true, by the time of the vikings 800 - 1000 the landscape of Denmark was pretty established and similar to how it would be for the next 1000 years with farm land, grazing land and forestry in the same places as later. Only thing that really changed was that first draining allowed for more farming and grazing and later plows and fertilisers allowed to convert grazing land into farming land. I learned this in my botany courses at uni.

Some have theorised that the rise of the vikings were due to Denmark being fully developed and overpopulated leaving a lot of sons without any possible heritage and thus going on Land-nam

You would basically have grazing at very high production places along lakes and low production sites like on hills, while you would have forestry on your least valuable lands and then you would have farmland wherever possible.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Sash!
Mar 16, 2001


Annual Prophet posted:

namely king henry viii, extracted from showtime and deposited directly into the danelaw, complete with primal scream orgasms

I loved the Tudors but was always disappointed his scream of I'M THE KING OF ENGLAND was never one of the primal scream orgasms

A Buttery Pastry
Sep 4, 2011

Delicious and Informative!
:3:

Buller posted:

This is not true, by the time of the vikings 800 - 1000 the landscape of Denmark was pretty established and similar to how it would be for the next 1000 years with farm land, grazing land and forestry in the same places as later. Only thing that really changed was that first draining allowed for more farming and grazing and later plows and fertilisers allowed to convert grazing land into farming land. I learned this in my botany courses at uni.

Some have theorised that the rise of the vikings were due to Denmark being fully developed and overpopulated leaving a lot of sons without any possible heritage and thus going on Land-nam

You would basically have grazing at very high production places along lakes and low production sites like on hills, while you would have forestry on your least valuable lands and then you would have farmland wherever possible.
I probably overstated the level forest cover in Denmark by tying it into a general point about Europe (particularly Eastern Europe), but AFAIK the population of Denmark roughly doubled between 800 and 1200. Was that all from shifting from the two-field system to the three-field system? Meaning an expansion of agricultural land wasn't needed at all? In any case, wasn't forest cover down to like 3-4% in 1800 (vs. the 13-14% of now), prompting protection of the last remaining forests? I don't see why that would have happened if that level of forest cover had been the norm for a millennia. That's not to say that farming land might not have been more stable over the period, since presumably people would be cutting down trees for other purposes than to simply clear land for farming.

CODChimera
Jan 29, 2009

So does Ivar just get away with killing his brother?

Buller
Nov 6, 2010

A Buttery Pastry posted:

I probably overstated the level forest cover in Denmark by tying it into a general point about Europe (particularly Eastern Europe), but AFAIK the population of Denmark roughly doubled between 800 and 1200. Was that all from shifting from the two-field system to the three-field system? Meaning an expansion of agricultural land wasn't needed at all? In any case, wasn't forest cover down to like 3-4% in 1800 (vs. the 13-14% of now), prompting protection of the last remaining forests? I don't see why that would have happened if that level of forest cover had been the norm for a millennia. That's not to say that farming land might not have been more stable over the period, since presumably people would be cutting down trees for other purposes than to simply clear land for farming.

Many factors can have explained a doubling of population between 800 and 1200, expansion into inland forets of course being a possibility but I would not assume this is the main proponent. Three field system along with a warmer climate possibly increasing crop harvest (These centuries were warmer than the previous and following centuries) and probably higher numbers of cattle, general knowledge of farming and perhaps a more efficient fishery? Are more likely factors for the increase.

Forest cover was down by 1800 because the coppice forests used by farmers and villagers were being overexploited at the same time as the aristocrats tall forests were being used to make large ships for the navy. This prompted forests reforms that promoted better management of the forests, I don't know how this effected day to day life of the people previously exploiting the coppice forests.

Dongattack
Dec 20, 2006

by Cyrano4747

CODChimera posted:

So does Ivar just get away with killing his brother?

I don't see why not, it was a legitimate kill by viking standards. James Hetfield talked poo poo and got a axe thrown at him, as you do. Bjørn and others that dislike/worry about Ivar might take the chance to call him out on it and confirm how he is reckless and has anger issues.

If the brother in question was particularly beloved by the others maybe there would be a big backlash, but if he was the show has utterly failed to convey that to me at least. Probably gonna be bigger consequences once Ivar gets around to killing the girl that can't stop getting boned every episode for spilling the beans about his broken boner, since the cool brother married her for some reason.

Zzulu
May 15, 2009

(▰˘v˘▰)
I personally wouldn't want to bang a girl together with my brother, you know. What if our dongers started rubbing up against eachother? What then? The brotherly dynamic would be in serious risk!!!

These bros are fuckin weirdos

Volkerball
Oct 15, 2009

by FactsAreUseless

Zzulu posted:

I personally wouldn't want to bang a girl together with my brother, you know. What if our dongers started rubbing up against eachother? What then? The brotherly dynamic would be in serious risk!!!

These bros are fuckin weirdos

Still not as gay as Spartans

Zzulu
May 15, 2009

(▰˘v˘▰)
bro get your fuckin balls outta my face bro

Volkerball
Oct 15, 2009

by FactsAreUseless
The best is that they were so predictably weirdos that Lagertha was able to trap them with it. Like her and those two chicks were just sitting there bullshitting about how they needed a way to trap those two so Lagertha could go kill their mom. And Lagertha was like so what we do is we get that chick they've both been banging in here and be like "so I know y'all've both been banging this chick out on the reg, but how about you take her in that room over there and bang her at the same time? Wouldn't that be fun?" And bam we got them! What do you girls think? And neither of the two chicks thought that was weird at all. And then it loving worked.

Could you imagine explaining that to people afterwards? "Dude, Lagertha just came in here and murdered the poo poo out of your mom! Where the gently caress were you?" "Oh... Oh boy."

life is killing me
Oct 28, 2007

Dongattack posted:

I don't see why not, it was a legitimate kill by viking standards. James Hetfield talked poo poo and got a axe thrown at him, as you do. Bjørn and others that dislike/worry about Ivar might take the chance to call him out on it and confirm how he is reckless and has anger issues.

If the brother in question was particularly beloved by the others maybe there would be a big backlash, but if he was the show has utterly failed to convey that to me at least. Probably gonna be bigger consequences once Ivar gets around to killing the girl that can't stop getting boned every episode for spilling the beans about his broken boner, since the cool brother married her for some reason.

Everything Dongattack said, plus the fact that Ivar's anger issues are actually a pretty big plus for the great heathen army as long as he keeps them confined, henceforth, to people who are not vikings

Dongattack
Dec 20, 2006

by Cyrano4747
Not that coolbro cares so much about his slave wife i think, I'm pretty convinced he took her mostly to spite Lagertha.
More that it would be a attack he would be expected to make right Vs "a person managed to goad a cripple into attacking him with an axe and then also failed to evade or deflect the attack from said cripple, probably then deserved to get hit with the axe".

I'm very excited to see coolbro and Ivars "relationship" progress. Out of all the brothers he seems to be the one that tolerates Ivar the most, but also the one we know will come head to head with him if he keeps his promise of killing his wife.

life is killing me
Oct 28, 2007

Honestly I think Ubba is a little afraid of Ivar

3 Action Economist
May 22, 2002

Educate. Agitate. Liberate.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

I probably overstated the level forest cover in Denmark by tying it into a general point about Europe (particularly Eastern Europe), but AFAIK the population of Denmark roughly doubled between 800 and 1200. Was that all from shifting from the two-field system to the three-field system? Meaning an expansion of agricultural land wasn't needed at all? In any case, wasn't forest cover down to like 3-4% in 1800 (vs. the 13-14% of now), prompting protection of the last remaining forests? I don't see why that would have happened if that level of forest cover had been the norm for a millennia. That's not to say that farming land might not have been more stable over the period, since presumably people would be cutting down trees for other purposes than to simply clear land for farming.

That doesn't seem right to me.

The proto-Indo-Europeans were all nomads, moving from area to area for animal grazing. They started in the Steppes, but ended up all over Europe. That doesn't seem possible if the whole place was a giant forest.

Wafflecopper
Nov 27, 2004

I am a mouth, and I must scream

life is killing me posted:

Honestly I think Ubba is a little afraid of Ivar

He straight up said that he is

life is killing me
Oct 28, 2007

Wafflecopper posted:

He straight up said that he is

I'd forgotten that. I'd be afraid of the little bastard too, his crippled state notwithstanding.

John F Bennett
Jan 30, 2013

I always wear my wedding ring. It's my trademark.

His crippled state makes him even more terrifying, with the creepy crawling thing.

A Buttery Pastry
Sep 4, 2011

Delicious and Informative!
:3:

Colonial Air Force posted:

That doesn't seem right to me.

The proto-Indo-Europeans were all nomads, moving from area to area for animal grazing. They started in the Steppes, but ended up all over Europe. That doesn't seem possible if the whole place was a giant forest.
I'm going off these here maps, which are the results of simulations based on various historical data such as forest cover and population density (and some data is clearly country specific, given that modern borders shine through in 1000 BC), as well as of course the local climate. Should probably be seen more as a rough estimate than God given truth. As for animal grazing, you can do that in forests too, right? Like, that's what deer do, and goats really aren't picky.



Buller posted:

Many factors can have explained a doubling of population between 800 and 1200, expansion into inland forests of course being a possibility but I would not assume this is the main proponent. Three field system along with a warmer climate possibly increasing crop harvest (These centuries were warmer than the previous and following centuries) and probably higher numbers of cattle, general knowledge of farming and perhaps a more efficient fishery? Are more likely factors for the increase.
Higher number of cattle meaning expanding into untouched grasslands presumably? Because otherwise that would make for less efficient agriculture. Got a point about fishing though, the waters around Øresund used to be absolutely teeming with herring, to the point that the water could look like it was boiling because of all the herring splashing about. In any case, just looking at the above map I must have forgotten how little forest there was on Zealand, because that's at a constant low on all the maps.


- Historical recreation of the deforestation of Denmark

Alhazred
Feb 16, 2011




CODChimera posted:

So does Ivar just get away with killing his brother?

Vikings had laws like any other society and murder was considered a big offense. But if you killed someone in a public fight (like Ivar did) you didn't get punished for it, but you would have to expect revenge or paying some compensation. Killing someone that insulted you (like it happened to Ivar) was, if not totally cool, not a capital offense. So, yeah, he gets away with it.

Grevling
Dec 18, 2016

Colonial Air Force posted:

That doesn't seem right to me.

The proto-Indo-Europeans were all nomads, moving from area to area for animal grazing. They started in the Steppes, but ended up all over Europe. That doesn't seem possible if the whole place was a giant forest.

The Proto-Indo-Europeans didn't necessarily migrate into Europe on a large scale, they may have been tiny elites or maybe their culture and language spread by osmosis because it had high status and was associated with new technologies and a new lifestyle. Besides, the migrations probably took hundreds of years so it wasn't like needed a great steppe to thunder across.

3 Action Economist
May 22, 2002

Educate. Agitate. Liberate.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

I'm going off these here maps, which are the results of simulations based on various historical data such as forest cover and population density (and some data is clearly country specific, given that modern borders shine through in 1000 BC), as well as of course the local climate. Should probably be seen more as a rough estimate than God given truth. As for animal grazing, you can do that in forests too, right? Like, that's what deer do, and goats really aren't picky.



Higher number of cattle meaning expanding into untouched grasslands presumably? Because otherwise that would make for less efficient agriculture. Got a point about fishing though, the waters around Øresund used to be absolutely teeming with herring, to the point that the water could look like it was boiling because of all the herring splashing about. In any case, just looking at the above map I must have forgotten how little forest there was on Zealand, because that's at a constant low on all the maps.


- Historical recreation of the deforestation of Denmark

That map shows that, by 300BC, much of the forests in western Europe were already shrunken greatly.

Grevling posted:

The Proto-Indo-Europeans didn't necessarily migrate into Europe on a large scale, they may have been tiny elites or maybe their culture and language spread by osmosis because it had high status and was associated with new technologies and a new lifestyle. Besides, the migrations probably took hundreds of years so it wasn't like needed a great steppe to thunder across.

Mostly it was horses, but horses require grazing space.

Grevling
Dec 18, 2016

Horses need grazing, yeah, but they don't require a treeless steppe. Country like Scandinavia was heavily forested until fairly recently, but they had horses. Again, it was likely a small elite and not a mass migration.

Buller
Nov 6, 2010
Indo-Europeans spread with cattle, their main advantage was their lactose tolerant adaption and their stone battle axes.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Dalael
Oct 14, 2014
Hello. Yep, I still think Atlantis is Bolivia, yep, I'm still a giant idiot, yep, I'm still a huge racist. Some things never change!

Zzulu posted:

I personally wouldn't want to bang a girl together with my brother, you know. What if our dongers started rubbing up against eachother? What then? The brotherly dynamic would be in serious risk!!!

These bros are fuckin weirdos

Well, having a threesome with a brother may sound very unnatural to us, but you have to put it in the context of that moment.

  • Locked thread