Dark Era: The Wolf and the Raven

[glamourweaver]

If I can propose a hypothesis to the hotly debated Shieldmaiden question the chapter touches on: while women generally didn't take part in raiding and act as soldiers in military campaigns (if they had there would presumably be more reference to them in the attestation of survivors of Viking raids), women were trained to take up arms in defense of their communities and families. This only further emphasis the SHIELD part of shield maidens - they defended their homes while men were off acting as offensive swords.

So it was obviously far from rare for women to distinguish themselves in combat, or die in noble battle, and be buried with arms accordingly.

[Lyrics Of War]

Yet Teutonic societies have had woman combatants historically, chiefly the longobards who (per the lore) had Freya disguise the women as men with long beards in combat. I might argue that there was no specified information on the matter implies that it was a common practice, not the opposite.

I find myself believing shield maidens to be a thing, behind not only the saga stories, but there was a law in Iceland allowing men to divorce their wives on the grounds of them dressin in armor as men would (see the laxdael saga).

Your hypothesis may well add to the notion of Freya's einherjar, as she does get half of te battle slain to remain in her hall, seperate from Valhalla. I've read that as being a sort of shield to Asgard before, however it wasn't from any scholarly perspective. May well be the same situation.

[NateD]

Arcee, I'm going to start calling you Nate. He tries to slip one of those into every game session we have

Assuming that that "Nate" is me, I think I like you even more now, ArcaneArts.

[Second Chances]

If it involves a Geist crossover, it's not really thread necromancy, right?

Anyhow, I'm trying to finish making a timeline of The Wolf and The Raven, but man, is it complicated! I really appreciate how focused this chapter was, because the Viking era has more than enough historical background to right several campaign settings out to it.

Wikipedia illustrates it well.

It is cool though that you could plausibly set The Wolf and The Raven anywhere between Montreal and Bagdad if you have a far-ranging/mercenary Pack or Krew. I'm really glad we got this era.

[ArcaneArts]

It definitely turned out way better than expected. I just wish the Forsaken and Sin-Eaters shared more space together.

[Deionscribe]

It definitely turned out way better than expected. I just wish the Forsaken and Sin-Eaters shared more space together.

Well, there's no harm in writing up some additional material of our own that's akin to a lot of sections in the Sundered World. That said, would the Lodge of Death be existing at this point in time?

[ArcaneArts]

Well, there's no harm in writing up some additional material of our own that's akin to a lot of sections in the Sundered World. That said, would the Lodge of Death be existing at this point in time?

Probably, yeah.

[Acrozatarim]

That said, would the Lodge of Death be existing at this point in time?

Yep, it would exist during that era.

[Deionscribe]

Yep, it would exist during that era.

And regarding your Fenris-related material, would werewolf Hel be a fallen member of said Lodge?

[Second Chances]

Exhibit a for why this is an amazingly diverse era to play in: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...&sf121542275=1

[Seidmadr]

Exhibit a for why this is an amazingly diverse era to play in: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...&sf121542275=1

Yeah. The three big possibilities are:
1) A Viking stole or bought the clothes, because they liked the design.
2) A Norse traveller to Persia converted.
3) A Persian followed the Swedes back home, for whatever reason.

2 and 3 are VERY interesting from an RP position!

Edit: I notice that the article doesn't mention another find, made in 2009, where a ring was found, in the Birka region, with the inscription of "For Allah, for Ali", as well.

[wyrdhamster]

Some general info how this Era relates to Forsaken by Rome and that some trade took place before the age of Vikings.

Reading ( and quoting ) article Khanwulf linked I can see that some southern groups of Norse would make longer contact with Rome and related kingdoms even in 6th century. So true revolution of Viking Age was that they founded route to Europe by sea, not on long haul of walk on your feet from North.

'According to Jordanes (485-552) there was during the 6th century AD a federation of several Norwegian tribes under one leader, Rodulf (Hrolfr), and the tribal names mentioned are easily recognizable from (still existing) Norwegian regional names, people from the ancient tribal lands of Ranariki (“Ran´s Realm” – Østfold in Norway and Bohuslän in Sweden), Grenland, Agder, Telemark, Rogaland, Hordaland, Háleygjaland and Sami people (Granii, Augandzi, Eunixi, Taetel, Rugii, Aprochi). Apparently these warriors were “taller and wilder than the Germans” and “fought with beastly ferocity”. Rodulf traveled all the way to Ravenna in Italy and was well received by the Gothic king Theoderic. Modern archaeologists are less and less surprised by such tales, since the southern and western coast of Norway had been in contact with southern European culture and aristocratic families for a long time already. The Scandinavians who ventured out also often returned. The death of Attila in 453 resulted in the freedom of several tribes who had been subject to the Huns for centuries already. The Rugii tribe, for example, had traveled all the way from Rogaland and south-west Norway (Avaldsnes high seat) and made a little realm for themselves in “Rugiland” close to Vienna since the year 408 AD. Here they converted to Christianity, but to the heretic branch of Arianism. Together with the Herulii from Skåne in Sweden, most of them actually returned to their Scandinavian homelands after trouble with the Romans. The sources show that even after centuries abroad, the ties to the original homeland tribes were strong and thriving.'

Let's be clear as well: Norse were a people between 800 and 1300 AD--a specific group of Germanics who were one of the last to spread themselves in excited settling throughout Europe and parts of Asia.

Nitpicking, but Norse existed long before Viking Age in year 800 AD - they were in Scandinavia at least from last great Ice Age ( circa 12 000 BCE ). Rest of Germanic people are rooting directly from Norse forefathers that left Scandinavia from circa 800 BCE till 600 BCE, with good climate. So, in reality, Norse from 6th century AD were joining Europe to reclaim what they forefathers wanted to grasp in the first place.

Wikipedia on Germanic people: 'Climatic change between 850 BCE to 760 BCE in Scandinavia and "a later and more rapid one around 650 BCE might have triggered migrations to the coast of Eastern Germany and further toward the Vistula.
The cultural phase of the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age in Europe (c. 1200–600 BCE in temperate continental areas), known in contemporary terms as the Hallstatt culture expanded from the south into this area and brought the early Germanic peoples under the influence of early Celtic (or pre Celtic) culture between 1200 BCE to 600 BCE, whereupon they began extracting bog iron from the available ore in peat bogs.'

[Gullinbursti]

Actually, while people existed and lived in the region, they aren’t Norse since that’s a term used to describe a particular cultural group from a historic period. It’s the same reason I made the joke about To the Strongest not being about Graeco-Roman groups since it predates the formation of Rome by about 200 years, Sure people lived in the region, but they aren’t what people think of when you say “Ancient Roman”. For a modern example, I am an Australian, I am not an Australian Aboriginal. I exist during the same time period and in the same location as Australian Aboriginals, but the term refers to a different racial/cultural group and merely equating location is a vast oversimplification.

[Khanwulf]

Nitpicking, but Norse existed long before Viking Age in year 800 AD - they were in Scandinavia at least from last great Ice Age ( circa 12 000 BCE ). Rest of Germanic people are rooting directly from Norse forefathers that left Scandinavia from circa 800 BCE till 600 BCE, with good climate. So, in reality, Norse from 6th century AD were joining Europe to reclaim what they forefathers wanted to grasp in the first place.

Wikipedia on Germanic people: 'Climatic change between 850 BCE to 760 BCE in Scandinavia and "a later and more rapid one around 650 BCE might have triggered migrations to the coast of Eastern Germany and further toward the Vistula.
The cultural phase of the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age in Europe (c. 1200–600 BCE in temperate continental areas), known in contemporary terms as the Hallstatt culture expanded from the south into this area and brought the early Germanic peoples under the influence of early Celtic (or pre Celtic) culture between 1200 BCE to 600 BCE, whereupon they began extracting bog iron from the available ore in peat bogs.'

Nits! Let's pick them. I can do wikipedia too, and my reference to dates came from their article as well:
Wikipedia on Norsemen: "Norsemen are a group of Germanic people who inhabited Scandinavia and spoke what is now called the Old Norse language between c. 800 AD and c. 1300 AD. The language belongs to the North Germanic branch of the Indo-European languages and is the predecessor of the modern Germanic languages of Scandinavia. Norseman means "man from the North" and applied primarily to Old Norse-speaking tribes living in southern and central Scandinavia. In history, "Norse" or "Norseman" could be any person from Scandinavia, even though Denmark, Norway and Sweden were different sets of people by the Middle Ages."

So pick your poison, really. We call the Germanic peoples--and there were a LOT of them, various groups and names of tribes--Germanic because the Romans did. Now we can say with some confidence that the Germanics all trace themselves back to Scanda ("homeland") in the north, when the Baltic was a warmer pond and much more pleasant a place. What do you want to call the people who stayed behind? Danes? Check--they invaded Juteland and kicked out the Jutes in the 4th-5th century... now we call it Denmark. Lombards? Migrated from Svaeland as the Winnili, joined the Suebi (confederation) in the 1st century and ended up taking over Italy in the 6th. There's a huge list of the various tribes and groups out there (also Wikipedia).

In other places (not Wikipedia) "Norsemen" are used to refer specifically to the inhabitants of Norway, which if done consistently would also solve the problem. In that sense we could safely pigeonhole the Swedes (and there predecessor people groups) as North Germanic, and separate them from the "Norse" Norwegians. I rather like the site linked, BTW, and wish to also point out that it uses the theory of Wuffingas == Wulfings which makes the ruling dynasty of the Angles in eastern Britain descended from the Geats.

So, now that I've ensured your reading amusement for some hours, let me return to the point: there are great many peoples, who came from various places and split up repeatedly as their family groups grew into clans, then tribes, and sometimes into confederations and kingdoms. It's all exceedingly complex, and the people and ideas/cultures moved around A LOT.

If you like digging, you can find some really cool inferences (i.e. Wuffingas means "son of the wolf"... make of that what you will in CofD), but it's best to avoid dogmatism because the best the archaeologists can say is that we think this or that--best guess. So... have fun!

--Khanwulf

PS. Thanks for moving the thread response.