|
Pretty good episode and Brollo is pretty mean. Can't help but feel that having an inland desert in Sweden is a little stupid though.
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
Ragnar's Kattegat town is in Denmark not Norway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
I like vikings better without the Aethelstan - Loki antagony.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Zero One posted:Bjorn earning his nickname. Taking a bear mauling in the face not even a scratch.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
darthzeta88 posted:The timing of Harold the fairhaired seems a bit off... Like Ragnar should be dead and the Great Heathen army roflstomps Britain first.Also isn't kattegut in Jutlund or do I have my geography off? Kattegat is the sea between Denmark and Sweden / Norway The town they call Kattegat in the series is just a random location somewhere on the eastside of the Jutland peninsula, probably somewhere east and north like where todays Aalborg or Randers is .
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Bjorn in Moor land reminded me a bit of Røde Orm.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Drunkboxer posted:I have yet to see a giant battle-cow.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
I was waiting at the same busstop as the guy that plays Ivar today.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
JohnCrichton posted:Did you say something to him? Nah didn't want to bother him, he was with travel luggage. He had some fun clothes on though, Native American style thick wool jacket and a cowboy like hat.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
Indo-Europeans spread with cattle, their main advantage was their lactose tolerant adaption and their stone battle axes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 09:22
|
|