Gay Vikings? Part 1: Norse Law
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 06. 2024
- Online Shop
norse-combat-sportswear.mysho...
The Most Valuable Patreon On CZcams
www.patreon.com/norsemagicand...
Instagram
/ thormmadj
Sources
Tacitus Germania/Aricgola
Historia Langobardorum
Julius Caesar, Gallic Wars
Aristotle, Politica
Benedictus Levita
Lex Visigothorum
Das Sendrecht'
Grágás
Västgötalagen
Járnsíða
Gulaþing
00:00- Intro
03:35- Germanic Law
07:20- Continental Law
12:01- Scandinavian Law
Ergi and argr are two Old Norse terms of insult, denoting effeminacy or other unmanly behaviour. Argr is "unmanly" and ergi is "unmanliness"; the terms have cognates in other Germanic languages such as earh, earg, arag, arug, and so on.
To accuse another man of being argr was called scolding and thus a legal reason to challenge the accuser in holmgang. If holmgang was refused by the accused, he could be outlawed as this refusal proved that the accuser was right and the accused was argr. If the accused fought successfully in holmgang and had thus proven that he was not argr, the scolding was considered what was in Old English called eacan, an unjustified, severe defamation, and the accuser had to pay the offended party full compensation. The Gray Goose Laws states:
There are three words-should exchanges between people ever reach such dire limits-which all have full outlawry as the penalty; if a man calls another ragr, stroðinn or sorðinn. As they are to be prosecuted like other fullréttisorð and, what is more, a man has the right to kill in retaliation for these three words. He has the right to kill in retaliation on their account over the same period as he has the right to kill on account of women, in both cases up the next General Assembly. The man who utters these words falls with forfeit immunity at the hands of anyone who accompanies the man about whom they were uttered to the place of their encounter.
Honestly, if the insult of being called gay, could garner you a duel to the death, then even if it wasn’t technically illegal, I imagine it wasn’t at all accepted culturally or societally.
Good old days.
@@ishadowxhunter-0135 I’d give anything to go back and escape the degenerate hell that is modernity.
@@dennisnordlund902 it will be fun until you catch a cold and die within like 2 days. And perpetual war doesn’t seem very nice either. Neither does constant abuse of women and children, rape, horrendous crimes committed by gangs, no electricity, no cars.
I would say that that is the gist of it. It wasn’t illegal in many of these places, but it was extremely dishonourable, such that accusing someone of it could get you killed
Imagine losing to the guy you called gay... bahahahahaha
I remember seeing once there was a law allowing Norse women to divorce their husband if their husband was wearing what looked like effeminate clothes at the time. Like showing too much chest with their shirts. How many unhappy Nordic wives sabotaged their husbands clothes to escape their unhappy marriages I wonder? I always found this divorce law hilarious and makes me think about the show Norseman.
Lawspeaker: you would like a divorce? On what grounds.
Married woman: fashion crimes, *gestures at husband*he is dressed too girly and it's embarrassing.
Lawspeaker: valid point, divorce granted!
Wearing female clothing as a male was VERY frowned upon. It is ridiculed several times in the Sagas
It goes to show you that the vikings understood what the characteristics of a man and a woman was and wasn't.
I reckon not many gay men then wore that kind of clothing.. as today a lot of gay men wouldn't look any different in dress etc than anyone else 😉
There's the story of Thor dressing like a woman ;)
Until he gets drunk and smacks a bitch and fights people In a display of dominance
"I'm here to piss off both sides with the facts." Subscribed
same bro🤣🤣
Exactly, that's my style, I already know the rest will be great.
And yet the conclusion is: we don't know for sure, believe what you want.
So you are saying gay african vikings are not real?
Bog
@@ryan-218 Here selfcastration was the norm i just learned 🤣
I just saw one sail down my creek in his longship. So they must be real!
I just saw one they are very real
I Am
I really appreciate your approach to history. Soooo much bias nowadays in everything its difficult to find anyone sharing information without trying to push an agenda on either side. I just want to know the unbiased truth about my ancestors
Right! So tired of all the "one or the other" trying to lie about things to push their opinions these days. Someone telling the actual sources no matter what, is very refreshing!
Well said. The truth is hard to know but we want facts and an unbiased discussion and this guy is good at that.
As a Swede with 100 years of socialism it's sadly impossible to have a discussion. What this man says is very close to a punishable conduct in Sweden. Everything here is about nitpicking things out of context to fit the modern socialist agenda. There's no point in reading any Swedish treatise. Britain has the most accurate and trustworthy research in my opinion. You can't even find real translations in Swedish of the most relevant sources like Ibn Fadlan and Beowulf so if we are interested to find out what the sources has to say we have to read it in English anyway.
Well none of them were gay , because you can't make a baby in a guys @$$.
@@chrissibersky4617 punishable conduct? Are you mad? What kind of right wing nonsense are you spewing? Is this the same as that supposed Canadian bill that would send you to jail immediately if you misgender someone, that to this day didn't imprison a single person? Get your head out of your ass, the "gay socialist agenda" isn't persecuting you
@@chrissibersky4617 shut up you’re British
I cannot wait for the other videos. I am learning something new with every video that you do. Thank you so much!
As to the idea about Vikings being more tolerant of LGBT-minorities.
There is a historical insult in old Norse language that was considered so vile that in some places you were not only legally allowed to kill a person who called you this name, but you were OBLIGED to kill the person who called you this, or else the rest of society would assume that the insult is true and you would lose your social standing completely.
This insult is "Rasragr". It's refers to a man who will adopt a sexually submissive position during intercourse with another man (I'll let you who read this figure out what that means in detail).
A culture that promotes the killing of people who insult you by refering to you as homosexual will hardly be a very "tolerant" culture towards homosexuality in general.
Fascinating, and I appreciate you showing sources and taking what you can from what evidence there is. Looking forward to your next instalment.
Germanic wise, wasn't slandering in general a very aggressive act?
I've been checking sources related to Nordic countries through time, and one thing that keeps popping up, is if you call someone a dog (among other animals), it's a direct insult and you could "challenge them to a duel" that would result in a deadly outcome, all the way up until the 1700's (atleast what I could find).
Holmgang anyone!?!? Norsemen style!!! ahahahaha...
czcams.com/video/WmjxkKMDk4g/video.html&ab_channel=Andrei
@@HroduuulfSonOfHrodger I LOVE that show xD
@@Schmorgus First season was hilarious with the Roman dude. After that the jokes got old and it went downhill. But Season 1 had me literally LOL. So funny. They need to bring that actor back in future seasons.
@@HroduuulfSonOfHrodger Yeah same. They just remade first season.
All the way up through the 1800s. Dueling went on quite late in history. The last duel happened in France in the 1960s, though, to be fair, it was to the touch rather than to the death and ended very quickly with a minor injury.
I'm sorry, but the majority of world cultures homosexuality was taboo and homosexuals we're ostracized or killed.
In my culture (Lakȟóta oyate) Wiŋkte (hermaphrodites) were considered wakȟaŋ (endowed with spiritual power), homosexuals were often care givers to elderly and orphans, but the Dakhóta tribes were opposite and considered homosexuality taboo and it was not accepted.
Ho eyes tokeshke oya un yanpie Hu Wo?
@@TheWizardOfTheFens Mawašte, nilakȟota hwo?
Sičhaŋǧu-Thípi emataŋhaŋ yelo.
Thanks for sharing your comment . I've tried to explain this to people too! M...
@@forspartaaa2348 I had written a comment about what you said about Native Americans.
I completely agree with you. I've tried telling people the same thing.
I apologize, "M" is the first letter of my name. Habit!
You make this sound like a good thing
Thanks. Very interesting.
Reminds me of researching my own ancient culture at university and a lecturer telling me that "what is recorded as LAW is often the IDEAL of a society not necessarily the general practice, therefore make what you will with whatever you've got", in terms of research material. Which is pretty much what I understood you to be saying in your video.
Thank you for covering this subject.
I've been curious about the attitude towards skraeling(?) in the old Norse period for some time.
I look forward to the next 2 parts.
Your debunking videos are among my favorites! Someone's got to clean the mess up. Getting the facts straight😉 takes work, thanks for getting it done!
In my country a collection of viking myths and legends books was released and im at the 4th book. What I know is: as soon as u get to know Freya u know that seid (witchcraft) is only for women and is a feminine thing, even Odin the most manly man of all the vikings had to do it in secret bc he was probably gonna be jailed or something for practicing something as feminine like witchcraft and also be humiliated.
There are those who have theorized that the very means by which a Seiđr witch gained her powers of divination was by, as you say, "taking it up the bum."
@@koikarp3490 what do you mean he wasnt a viking? He actually almost killed himself several times bc he kept making mistakes while doing seid, he had to beg and even force freya to teach him how to do it and not even her, before her she asked another witch who odin killed bc she refused to teach him after a few tries.
@@JustMe-hg5bq He's not a viking because he's not a viking
@@koikarp3490 right... The God of all vikings aint a viking, i forgot... Must have read the title of the books wrong silly me.
@@JustMe-hg5bq I think that KoiKarp is trying to say is that Odin isn't a Viking in the sense that he was not "of that profession." Ofin is the god of all Norse, but a "Viking" is trader/pirate, an adventurer. Many a Danish farmer, once the fields were planted went a-viking, but those who did not go, were not 'Vikings' they were Northmen.
I'm so glad I found your channel, not only because Im interested in the subject. It's great to find others like you and most of your viewers, presumably that can speak the truth and real facts without being afraid to offend or upset anyone..
Not just on the subject of sexuality as in this video, but all of your videos and probably your daily life..
It's a breath of fresh air to get someone who speaks true and will say I'm not very versed on something, therefore not speak on it..
Awesome stuff man and much respect.. Keep it up brother
Just subscribed after watching a couple videos I really like how you present information and look at all sides with at least, in my opinion, no noticeable bias just the facts that we know.
Hands down my favorite channel for Viking History. I ordered an arm cuff and I love it thank you for all the sources you use and let us make up our minds.
damn u sparked an idea how cool would it be if he had his own arm cuff for the channel would be a dope merch and we know it would be accurate!
I love that you tell the facts. History and truth isn't supposed to always make everyone happy. People get angry at truth because it can invalidate their understanding of a subject.
Exactly!
The prevalent modern philosophy seems to be "truth isn't what's true, it's whatever serves the greater good for people to believe." Incredibly short sighted.
@@Durzo1259 that philosophy is as old as time, people have been doing that with religion since forever.
The thing about history is that you can't say is all facts, you can't know it in its entirety, many documents were destroyed, things were different from land to land, you don't know who really wrote it, etc etc.
Is not 100% facts.
@@Durzo1259 Just shows you know nothing about modern philosophy. Ever heard of postmodernism?
Hels yes, I am here for it as usual! Can’t wait for part 2!
I've never even thought about that subject. My feelings/thoughts are the same as yours. Let people love who they want to. It's none of my business. Beastiality is a whole different thing. Not cool at all. Animals don't have a say. It's abuse.
When you were severely punished for slandering someone of a act then the act must be really evil in the opinion of the culture. The act is up there with child abuse and murder.
I think you could be mis-reading that - interpreting it through the eyes of 21st Century law codes. These ancient or early-medieval Germanic cultures were honour cultures. The thing about accusing someone of gay sex in such a culture, particularly being on the receiving end, is you are impugning their masculinity and therefore their honour. So the reason *accusing* someone of receiving anal sex would be listed as a crime, but receiving anal sex itself would *not* be listed as crime, would be that the act itself is seen as not criminal but dishonourable. If you want to dishonour yourself, that is up to you, though you will be socially stigmatised. But *unfairly accusing* someone of dishonour is a serious matter, so if the accuser cannot prove their accusation, the accused has a right to kill the accuser to restore his honour. It’s a different situation than accusing someone of committing a crime in our society. It is accusing someone of dishonour, rather than criminal activity.
@@willmosse3684 The person accused of the act has a right to kill the accuser wheather he can prove it or not. That implies to something more serious.
@@rockmcdwayne1710 I’d like to see the actual text on that. It would be weird to give someone the death penalty for correctly reporting someone else was provably a criminal. Even if it were the case that case that the accuser having evidence did not make any difference, I don’t see how that would make it “more serious”, and therefore it would have to work the way that would make more sense to us in our culture. In an honour culture, impugning someone’s honour is as serious as it gets.
@@willmosse3684 I would say its rather serious accusation even when taking account your theory. Honor that is! Calling someone a coward or... pussy or well, take your pick. There can be quite many serious offences. Many of these have resulted in duels for honor all accross europe. Just calling someone THAT and giving your opponent a legitimate reason to kill you, seems way more serious than just plain honor!
That's stating the obvious , but somebody will miss that point intentionally.
"As long as you don't crap in the street or scare the horses, I don't care what you do.". - Ragnar Lodbrok (probably)
“Go ahead, crap in the street.” -Mayor of San Francisco
Fascinating. Appreciate the fairness and honesty.
thank you for the video. Will watch part 2 & 3.
Interesting video. As Greek i have the same opinion. In ancient Greece it was not acceptable in all periods and in all regions. It has to do with the season and the city state. In Sparta, for example, gays were not accepted at all and even risked death if they were noticed. In ancient Athens of the golden age they were more tolerant but even there there are many misunderstandings. But if we go back to the time of Solon we will see in the laws of Athens that being gay automatically meant that you lost your political rights and you were not liked. In ancient Thebes we have the exact opposite, as their army consisted purely of gay men who were even couples, on the grounds that they would defend the life of their partner until death. It must also be clarified how we mean the term gay today and how then. In ancient Greece as naturalists even in cases where homosexuality was accepted in terms of sexual love had the character of the predominance of the strong over the weak. All males were trained for battle from an early age and did not have the feminine characteristics of gay communities today. As the video said, the truth is somewhere in the middle and does not serve the political purposes of today and yes. many times you study history based on political beliefs and the promotion of Propaganda.
They weren't feminine at all but there dressing and stuffs will be considered feminine now a days . Since you cannot look into past from modern lenses. I know more about Macedonia , it was more about passive or reciever being seen as a lesser man . But they were still in war are well tho they accompanied other men.
@@thereality3398 we cannot say that with today's data the dress code of the ancient Greeks would refer to feminine characteristics. Just then, citizens used to wear tunics and soldiers used to wear armor. Pants were not common because, according to the Greeks, they were worn mainly by barbarians. also then the women were dyed and not the men. It was considered a barbaric feature for men to paint themselves and wear earrings, for example this was used by the Persians. only in cases such as the ancient theater could men be painted in the context of an actor who was performing some theatrical performance and they also represented women, because women were forbidden to act in the theater. whenever by today's standards they don't have feminine features, just weird
@@warlordscorpion88 you are true to some extent but I will like to add on more there was a type of crop top for men , men kept long hair which they actually took care of as well , they also wore a elevated shoes (a type of heel) this I'm talking about normal dress code , obviously the warrior had to wear Armor but not always .
The things i mentioned above would definitely be considered feminine in modern times , men were very much into aesthetic look and Androgyny was also common for example Alexander the great was one of them , who was obsessed with fashion and stuffs which also worried his mother , and not to mention what he did in persia whicj offended geeks .
Technically any non-greek was considered as barbaric in Greece even an erect Peen . The southern Greek States considered Macedonians as Barbarians and were racist towards them most of the time before Philip conquered them , Macedonians have this frustration to this day .
You will also notice a trend , if you look into the scriptures the trend of body type changed throught the ancient Greece time period .
I know it would frustrating for you to hear people say homosexuality started from Greece but don't worry , I'll tell you more it actually didn't .
The west looks on greece because it was the first European nation to have a good civilisation . But I'm not just into Greece or Romans I'm into although the civilizations before the abrahimic era , it was also very common in ancient India , which is way more older than ancient Greece there are literally temples with drawing of those things .
You can compare Hellinism with Hinduism , both have multiple gods and were non invasive religions and older , in both homosexuality was never a sin at all .
Talking about Sparta i think pedastry was illegal but army men do engaged in several acts but I'm not sure since I've done more about Macedonia and Athans not Sparta . But yeah I'll look into it ,.my interest is into war and stuffs but i do get accross these things and try to look from a different angle not from modern lenses.
These things have been recorded in ancient egypt , China as well .
You are dum, you dont know the law, and always a law can be breakeable, so if theres a law that's prohibiting something, theres is no doubt that can be aa punishemnet, but seriously any historian, of any time now that the laws dont apply enterely, dumb
If women in ancient greek states treat like second class with no rights , it's impossible to think that feminem men treat equel like other men.
Reason for that is very simple , men who are passive in sexual act were treat like women or prostitutes(females or males).
Jews gave us christianity but Greeks created it , so it's very stupid to think that from so called "helenistic gay paradise" all of a sudden all of them became homophobic.
Ancient Greeks were little less homophobic just because in that time you can buy or f*ck slaves.(women or men).
czcams.com/video/EaCvFNH28lo/video.html
I think this short video from Soprano tv-show about gay people tell us how Greeks and Romans react.😁
Thank you so much for starting a small series like this, myself being bisexual and currently married to a man, I was curious about what the Viking cultures thought of same sex situations, as I feel a deep connection with the small part of my northern ancestry. I am very excited for the future videos because it's somewhat hard to do research online because everything is biased to our modern expectations. I have adopted paganism over Christianity based on my sexual preferences, and I feel more spiritually alive, but I do not want to claim something if it's not accepted
If you are the one to enter the ass than to Valhöll you may pass- Odin
@@SYMBIOTEDINOSAURthat would look dope on a doormat for a gay house
Very interesting. Thank you for this.
By the way, where is part 3?
Thanks for the level headed presentation of this subject. 👍
I suspect, that in general, no culture or society is a monolith. Hadrian and Sulla were certainly bisexual (Hadrian maybe just homosexual), yet co-existing with laws against homosexual acts.
In the case of the American Revolution, the Baron von Steueben was gay, and it was an open secret. George Washington refused to execute gay men at Valley Forge, only deciding to dismiss them from the army. Yet as a whole, it certainly was not an accepting society.
But when understanding sexuality in the past, there is a necessary to distinction between homosexuals and homosexual acts. In some ways the modern notion of a gay man as an identity is shaped by culture, they didn't necessarily have an obvious depiction of a man who loved a man, wanted a family with a man, etc. But dudes have been gettin it on with each other since time immemorial. Coexisting with harsh the repression of homosexuality were also people who didn't care, looked the other way, and were so themselves.
What laws against homosexuality in Rome? there were laws against it as far as between free citizens but not between citizens and slaves, not all together.
though always remember, laws aren't always showing of how society behaves. see laws on speeding and marijuana
@@ManiacMayhem7256 Yes, you stated the laws on it as I understand it, and marijuana usage vs. legality is a very apt comparison in terms or laws and public attitude.
As a queer person I know we’ve always been there, but I don’t have delusions that we were accepted throughout history!
especially when the most important thing for a tribe was to prosper and have as many members as possible, and any man refusing "to do his job" was a disgrace.
now we don't have that need anymore (sort of), but wanting to rewrite history because the past was ugly is delusional
don't care
I was told by a queer and fat person (he admitted to both these things) that he would thrive in Ancient Greece Mesopotamia Egypt and Persia as a black man (cuz he was black) and my first question was, “well if you don’t identify as a male (which he was) how will you contribute to the society? And he said he would just perform the male duties expected of him and obviously I asked how he would do that if he was a heavy person like he was since all duties back then(unless you had a specific skill) were all manual labour so how would he perform those tasks if he isn’t physically fit? And obviously he can’t procreate since he isn’t straight, so how would he contribute to society?
@@sirjordancarter than move along!
@@regnbuetorsk true, now I’m less visible because I’m cis and bi, so I would have easily fit into a socially normative position, and just hook up with other woman in secret!🤷♀️
After all, all woman are totally gay!!🤣
Well Corpore Infamous, literally means “Body Infamous”. Based off how the Romans often described their laws, as “bodies of law”, this would likely not be a single law or offense but cover a “body” of offenses. Infamous could be being used much like corpore damnatio. As a class of offenses that make you damned/infamous in the eyes of the state and other citizens. So we would have to know what that “body of laws” was specifically addressing to form a better idea of what crimes they were writing about.
Infamy in the republic era was anything that lowered your social standing to the degree that you no longer “deserved” the legal protections of being a citizen. These could include being a prostitute, actor, gladiator, or being a receiving homosexual. Though historically the homosexuals aren’t seen as being, as bad, as the rest of the list. Outed homosexuals often retained their legal protections and only suffered a loss of social standing. Which in a culture where every man is needed for the legions(pre imperial) this makes sense, you don’t want to encourage homosexuality (potentially fewer sons being born), but you aren’t going to throw away a desperately needed soldier.
I've seen videos from archaeologists that say there have not been any "bog bodies" found from the Viking age. They have all been dated much later.
On the subject of translating the Latin "corpore infames": "corpore" is the ablative case of "corpus" ('body'); the ablative case adds the meaning of 'from', so "corpore" is 'from a body' or 'from the body' (Latin lacks articles). "Infames" is the 2nd person singular present active subjunctive of the verb "īnfāmō" ('I dishonour, I defame, I bring ill repute'). Therefore, "corpore infames" means "you dishonour from the body; you bring ill repute from the body".
Infames is not a verb! 2nd person? Who is addressed? Don't get robots to translate words for you. Use your brain and look at the sentence: '...ignavos et imbelles et corpore infames caeno ac palude, iniecta insuper crate.'
This is a good video. Making any accusation back then (especially in certain cultures) was taken very seriously. If you accused someone of something, you'd best have the evidence to back it up because, in communities where every single person pulled their share of the weight - for their community, Any accusation could cause a major disruption in the smooth flow of that community's functions. Even the slightest accusation could cause a breakdown of that community. It literally affected every single person. Wouldn't it be great if everybody in the world could develop a 'live and let live' attitude?. Although, even that would likely have it's own repercussions. Just saying, lol.
I wish individualism made a comeback
@@ManiacMayhem7256 individualism wasn't a thing before America, also it is ironic you say this while heaving a Ukrainian flag in your name, as you are basically doing something to conform to society(i support Ukraine VERY much)
@@napalmsticks6494
>individualism wasn't a thing before America
America helped develop the idea but the idea has deep roots long preceding the USA. Some of it can be stated to date back to Greece, perhaps even older.
Seeing as I still have this flag while everyone has forgotten the Ukraine war and instead is about pride, that should tell you that I ain't really conforming now am I? You're that wojak NPC of "I support opposite of current thing". Nothing wrong with being individualist especially when Ukraine is defending itself from Putin, a diehard socialist who's nationalizing tons of industry and is allies with China
@@ManiacMayhem7256 i wasn't criticizing Ukraine, i said it was funny you were talking about individualism while conforming.
@@napalmsticks6494
And i myself countered that
Napalm sticks but your brain sure don'tt. Keeps slipping out your head
I would love a video that breaks down your research processes. It would help me allot in my own practice.
What good sources for studying languages have you come across that are not so bias? I'm curious for learning purposes
Being a descendant of Vikings from both sides, I've always been curious of what would have possibly been their lifestyles and what happened around their lives. The Internet is a pain in that respect because you kinda have to take everything with a grain of salt since people like to alter things.
I mean this with the up most respect but how does one trace themselves back so far!?.....is it like the DNA tests they do or the assumption that both sides of your family are Scandinavian!? I mean my family on my Mom's side traces its self back to like early 1800's and I feel it's just all going to be very Anglo-Celtic (English/Welsh) down to family names etc
Think my family just contributed to the glory of the British Empire for good or ill Lol ☹️
Maybe a video on the history of vikings in the american continent? did they ever see the prehispanic civilizations or even intereacted with them?
Can you do a review on the Grimm story “Bearskin”? I watched a video on it and thought it had a few parallels to the Germanic berserker rituals
Weird off subject question. Although there were Germanic tribes at the time. My 23 and me makes it clear my ancient saxon and Norway bloodlines are Scandinavian. Not much modern german blood or even French as I suspected I would have more.
What do you think sets the Scandinavians apart? The I route? Cro magnon or some sort of neanderthal mix?
First of all those commercial tests aren't all that accurate, especially given how closely related all Europeans are to each other they can be hard to distinguish from one another especially 1000 years back. Basically ancient Germanic people's were so closely genetically homogeneous that the test isn't accurately parsing the data. All those test give you back a probabilistic answer anyways and inexpensive tests(like commercial ancestry tests) dont give as good answers as the tests researchers use
I studied Latin for 9 years and I confirm that "corpores infames" refers in Tacitus to homosexuals.
They were drowned in bogs
That’s funny. I’ve studied both Latin and Ancient studies, and I would not have dared to make such a confirmation at all. To me, it looks like a case of reading something into the text that isn’t necessarily there.
@@robinviden9148 We spent an entire semester on Tacitus and my teacher, who was also a historian, said the term here refered to homosexuals. Yes "corpores infames" does not literally mean homosexuals but then again that's also the case for "delicatus" and yet we all know it refers to homosexuals. Infames on its own refered in Ancient Rome to male prostitutes.
seeing Roman views on it at the time, he likely meant bottoms. note that Tacitus had never been to Germania and was trying to make moral argument. note Germanic tribes weren't all the same.
@@robinviden9148 I have literally studied both latin and roman law and am in the same position, I would never make such a confirmation. In my personal opinion, this reading is a product of our modern obsession with sexualizing the pagan world. The text literally deals with the dishonorable actions that a man can commit to avoid going to war and somehow, someone reads sex in one of the passages. xD
It is true that there is no real word for homosexuality in Latin, there are as he says, many that are used to describe circumstances in a homosexual "relationship". And that's the problem with Latin and Romans. They did not describe a sexual orientation as part of the person, they described circumstances and realities with their words. They described if someone was effeminate, if someone was passive in the sexual act (the most described in Latin, in fact I do not remember that there is a word that describes being active), if someone was a sexual slave, if someone was a prostitute, if someone it is a young prostitute or sex slave, whether someone was in an equal emotional relationship or whether it was a kind of servitude born of domination by a Roman over a non-Roman. All those circumstances have Latin words to describe them. But there is no word that is comparable or translatable to "Homosexual", "Gay" or even "Sodomite" as we know it.
Now, I will not defend Tacitus and his views on homosexuality. The man lived under Nero and participated in creating the negative image that surrounds him even until now, but still, in all his writings, when he mentions scandals about gays, he never uses this expression. Use the thousand and one words used to describe sexual acts or circumstances of relationship between two men.
That and that, the other times that we see other historians, legislators and writers use expressions similar to "Corpus Infames" does not make references to sex or gays, it makes me be one of those who believe that we are reading sex in an expression that had its use and meaning in Roman law and culture.
The other most famous case of the use of an expression similar to the one used by Tacitus, is by Titus, who, while describing a war situation, uses "infamous corpus" to describe the dishonor of deserting and surrendering to your enemies. Referring to the loss of honor and value as a person by helping the enemy.
In my opinion, it refers to something that has to do with war and military service. It is the general context of the examples (Traitors, deserters, shirkers, coward). And if we take into account that the expression is used by other historians as an insult of loss of value as a person for a dishonorable action. And for its focused context, in its placement alongside cowardice and shirkers. It makes me think that it refers to the action of avoiding a military or civil duty through the dishonor of the "body" (The person). If you tell me that in Germania, like in today's Turkey, if you prove you're gay by showing evidence that you have sex with other men, you get out of military service, I would believe that it refers to that action, but that is not what happened. So for the context, if I start to speculate (And it's just speculation based on how Roman legislation works with the issue of military service and its importance in the identity of people, especially men), it refers to wounding or mutilating to oneself so as not to be obligated to serve civilly or militarily.
And I believe that because for the Romans these types of fraudulent acts born of cowardice were the lowest that a man could do. In fact, in the legislation, for centuries, when it spoke of crimes for "unmanly" acts, it does not refer to sex, it refers to circumstances of cowardice and insubordination. In fact, titus, in his use of this expression, which is really an insult against a man's personality and virility, uses it to refer to this, cowardice and insubordination. For this reason, together with its context and use, it makes me think that Tacitus refers to this idea of "unmanly acts" that for the Romans, is not sex with other men, as it would be for the Christianized world, it is being dominated by the cowardice and not fulfilling your military and civil duty.
P.D: For Yusuf, "Infame" does refer to male prostitutes, but not in the context in which you put it. "Infame" was any Roman person who, by bringing "shame" to his person, loses his civil status or privilege as a Roman. Male prostitutes were 'infame' because socially it was frowned upon for a Roman to be passive in a sexual relationship between two men, therefore, the passive had to be a foreigner or slave, and if he was Roman, he could fell into 'infamia'. It was a word to describe a circumstance a person found himself in, not a personality trait. There were circumstances in which a woman could be infame or in which a man could be without having been homosexual.
Ultimately, it was a legal circumstance, not an actual description of homosexuality. In context, it would be like calling someone "the divorcee" it was a description of a civil status, negative, but not necessarily linked to homosexuality (Most of the time)
I kind of like the idea of a society where calling someone a bitch is grounds for a challenge of mortal combat. Seems like this would create a strong society of people who spoke harshly, only when confidently willing to back it up.
What edition of the Golden Bough is better?
Oxford University Press, USA; Reissue 2009 VS Penguin Books; Abridged 1998?
I can only really afford one of those, the rest on Amazon/Bookshops here in Brazil is a crazy amount!
Congrats on getting to 94k subscribers!!
Interesting and timely, but I get the feeling that a lot of people are using Netflix and HBO as a "source." Sure, it's fine to have "representation" in a make believe piece of popular fiction, but I'm not enough of a capitalist to require every bit of history and art to defer to my identity. History isn't Burger King - you don't get it YOUR way. We can learn and move forward, however.
Alas there's a horrible trend with "some people" using Hollywood and mass media as their historical account.
People believe what they see, even when it's on their TV. As for economics, what's that got to do with history and with this newfangled thing called "my identity"?
@@rubynibs My identity is important
@@rubynibs True, tv has a powerful influence. As to economics, you'll need to do your own research on that one. It would be rude to hijack this post.
@@IanM92 I agree fully. I realised that my comment above does not specify mine as a gay man. But I think it is neutral enough regardless of my background ... or even using Burger King as an analogy.
Just for your edification, the Latin pronunciation of Tacitus is "TAH-kee-toos". C is always K, U is always OO, J is always Y (like in Scandinavian) and W is always V; AE is pronounced like the word EYE. Another example: Julius Caesar is "YOO-lee-oos KEYE-zar" (like the German "Kaiser", which just means "Caesar"; this is also from whence the Russian term "Czar" is derived).
That is the Latin pronunciation. He is speaking English. In English, the way he said it is a totally acceptable pronunciation.
@@willmosse3684 It is a mispronunciation based on sharing almost-interchangeable alphabets without considering other linguistic differences. That misinformation has become the standard practice in English-speaking cultures does not make it correct.
@@nevisysbryd7450 Yes it does. Different pronunciations for names in different languages is completely standard. You want to use the Latin pronunciation, go ahead. But “Tassitus” is completely acceptable when speaking English.
Actually, the Classical Latin pronunciation that you're using is highly Anglicanized. The actual vowels and consonants in Latin do not have actual English cognates. The best is just to use the standardized English pronunciation of the names and not worry about how one might think the Latin should be pronounced.
Check out this video from Latin linguist Luke Ranieri on why using the English pronunciation of Latin derived terms makes more sense that trying to use, and usually butchering, the Classical Latin pronunciation (though no problem if you would rather do it that way - just don’t hector others about it): czcams.com/video/IjcX3MVSdyA/video.html
Fantastic and unbiased analysis
Love your knowledge please keep making more videos
Yes there were gay Vikings but they didn’t glorify it and define themselves by it …. And yes government rarely actually represents the people historically speaking
Regarding Germania, Tacitus never went to the places he was describing. So, yeah
But he describes the same mentality against homosexuality that the German tribes have later throughout history until now... PS he talked to Roman's who were there
@@thoorwulfn9z383 I don’t think the German tribes were homophobic if they had that much cultural exchange with the Celts, whom were rife with homosexuality.
@@Frenchfrys17 thats what the sources say.
Thanks again for your valuable time creating this videos. If if I may, can you make a video when the Devine Rulers failed their people?
what is the song called that you use in the begining of your videos?
Are there any clues what it might have looked like in animist times?
I’d be interested in that too!
I'm gonna save you 16 Minutes of this guy trying to make it fair for both "sides".
If you were gay in the viking age you got murdered, It was never legal anywhere in the world at that time and it should never have been legal either.
This is unbelievably wrong. India. China. Japan. Rome. Greece. Hittites. Ancient Arabs. Egyptians. Parts of Mesopotamia. Many native tribes. And, yes, certainly some Germanic tribes all were in varying degrees accepting of same-sex relationships.
I'd tell you to educate yourself, but I doubt you'd be interested.
@@Anon-fd8ui I would wager that it was most Germanic tribes prior to Christian influence. Seeing as how many sources there were showing homosexual activity among their closest neighbors (Celts) and Germanic tribes like the Heruli and Taifili.
After living in Germany for quite a while, I noticed how much more the locals seem to be upset by "beleidigung" than they ate by an actual physical assault. I always wondered if that was just my own personal observation. I could never get a straight answer from anyone or a legal opinion.
How did you get the helmet from Ragnar av Norheim?? 😉😂😉
the welsh viking also made a great informative and evidence based video on the topic, I recommend it to people who watch this channel.
The big difference however is that somehow his comment section isn't filled with people repeating nazi talking points.
Seriously what is wrong with you guys here!? "degeneracy of modernity" and all that shit. you would piss your pants amongst the old norse because of how lenient they were on certain topics.
You're so beautiful to look at and listen to, even when talking about horrific cruelty. Your channel is fascinating and informative.
In Latin Coitus infamous means illegal intercourse. However, the Catholic Church decided exactly what ' ilegal intercourse ' was. Ecclesiastical Authority has been abused at times.
Interesting . Thank you for the information
as a norwegian and new pagan, i love watching ur videos. i learn so much from this
I'm a Gaelic Heathen, so as you mention in the video this topic is not as big a deal for us, but I do find the topic interesting, and appreciate you taking a balanced look at it.
unrelateds to this topic> you beefed up quite nicely and during summer even
Parts 2 and 3 ? Can you provide a link?
Pissing off people on all sides is always fun
I'm personally "slightly one-sided", and I was actually relieved that someone could tell what the sources say without adding their own spice to it.
False equivalence fallacy. As if the two sides are “equally bad” Typical centrist. lol
It’s alway nice to watch the world burn
@@vampirewarioo8483 Give me an example of how one is better than the other because I see two dangling wings and one f*cked up bird
@@jonniemckaig883 Leftists support lgbt people
I find your channel very interesting and you seem to be quite learned in anything Viking. That doesn't happen easily. It takes years..decades to be able yo speak of such as amicably and easily as you do. And thank you for the no bias presentations. As...a Christian...(protestant) I try to keep an open mind regarding other cultures/roots. This is a subject where the "church" (ie Catholicism) has been so hypocritical on its difficult for me to hear them described as christian. None the less the old Latin is as you say interpreted by bias when one wishes to gain the argument can be interpreted but must be IN CONTEXT. Like you I wish no ill on one's "preferences" as long as it's not harmful and kept discrete and not forced on anyone else. That could be taken hypocritically..as most cultures did force their ways on new conquests...lol.
P.s....im an old woman..but I know a handsome young man when I see one. (And no I'm not having those thoughts 🤦. My grandaughter is interested in Viking culture. You help me to have a conversation with her!) Keep learning. Keep sharing. Thank you!
Thanks for the video. Liked and Subscribed.🌱
The Gulating law is actually very representativ of the thoughts and opinions of the people living at the time, since it's codified law practice. The law practice was based upon the solution in different cases that emerged in local communities, which in turn dictated how one should react in a similar situation. But every now and again some situations were deemed to hard to simply solve in those communities. Those cases would be discussed between the local communities leaders once they met up at Tinget, and they would find a solution together. The solution would be based on discussions of traditions, similar cases in other communities and their solutions and whatever else seemed relevante to attain a good solution - one that could define the solution in future similar cases, and one that all the communities could confidently stand behind and adhere to.
Should anyone be interested then the book Speculum legale by Sunde, Jørn Øyrehagen is a really good source, although It's in Norwegian. Also the reading list for the UiB course "JUS134 Rettshistorie og komparativ rett" is great to learn a little more about ancient Norwegian law practice.
I am gay and we have always been around. Gay people are not new but Times were very different then. You can’t change the past. Don’t change how things were, it was what it was. Thank you for telling the truth.
Every one knows this
@@thereality3398 The epic levels of ignorance about lgbtq people is real, even in this info age.
@@thereality3398they really don't
So I guess the perspective upon Lokis offspring varied from region to region too
I understand and agree with accept opinions only from educated people or people with sources, but you definitely cannot prove for anyone that they have no bias. Any opinion with valid/provable context or conclusion from a source is accepted for discussion
Thank you for simple historical facts. So many biases and agendas, have been pushed into history on both sides. I like facts. I agree, to each his own as long as it causes no harm to others.
Very valuable insight! I'd like to imagine some villages and families could still accept their loved ones, even though laws were a certain way. And if i may speculate, the myths about Tor and Loki doing various womanly acts and still being considered imposing gods would at least hint at it being somewhat accepted as a thing that happens (even if only to joke about!). It is also curious how in ancient laws and customs women loving women are rarely if ever mentioned, meaning we can only assume it wasn't considered as offensive. More sex for us I guess! :D
maybe because it was not common for women to lay with women or that the laws are generalities. such as we say "mankind" but thats a general word to mean both men and women.
According to Greeks and Romans they were against women being with women from what i know , there is clearly mentioned women are not supposed to be with women but only men if you look into ancient Greece .
A man especially Masculine could keep women and younger men .
First thing I though of was "Wooden tent pegs..." 🤣
Har du slåsset proff i mma?
Interesting. How societies change, when in the classic period homosexuality was reported between men in armies. Thinking of early Greek and Roman. Morals do tend to shift over time.
Greeks and Romans are completely different , it's shame Americans associate themselves to them .
The ancient Greece and Rome was before abrahimic religion.
If you look into Hinduism it's just like what used to be Hellinism and in both homosexuality was never a sin . It all started after abrahimic religion.
The reason why male male sexuality was so strongly discouraged in the Scandinavian cultures is because live was harsh. Many babies, and women, died in the process of giving birth. Likewise, children who were born with "imperfections" would be sacrificed to prevent the bloodline being contaminated by further "imperfections". This meant that is was vital that no man seed be spilled outside a fertile tract. Perhaps that sounds ridiculous, but we have to acknowledge the facts and move on. Great video!
It wasn't before abrahimic religions
I love how I can come here and get the real info about the sources its so hard nowadays to practice this religion based off of there being so much inaccurate info.
Great video
I think they made laws primarily because they wanted marriage and babies made. A bigger population for bigger raiding parties, and more people mean more taxes, and more power and influence for the lords and Kings. Also it was so hard to make babies back then, especially in cold climates, that they made laws like this. IMO, based on history and cultures.
Or maybe because they thought *they* were gross? Lol
I think this is a valid theory actually and is probably why a lot of ancient civilizations frowned on same sex relations.
@@davidsong5315 Nah, everyone with half a brain left that kind of judgment to the Abrahamists
@@ScarletVoodoo False. The existence of homosexual activities does not at all mean the suppression of heterosexual activities. A man can easily have intercourse with multiple males after he had already impregnated his wife with twins during the 9 month term.
I read two books by the open-minded historian Ian Mortimer and Kathryn Warner about the much later than this _sujet_ herein King Edward the second of England. Of course we know that he had male favourites++ and the first one we know of was apparantly the love of his life being the french knight Piers Gaveston (who trounced all incomers at the joust and gave very funny names to certain english nobles who looked down on his mere knightly station such as "the black dog of Aydern" to one of them who later had a hand in his execution). Well. one source names Gaveston as being the king's *"catamite"* , a name which filled me with glee upon seeing it. Later on Edward had the awful and rapacious Hugh Despenser as his fav and one source which must have been in latin named the twain as being "maritus" which I remember even the author remarking on.
And I def agree with your opinion from the myriad books and excerpts I have read over time that mention same-sexual relations in antiquity: it's acceptation lies somewhere in the middle of the current politically corrective consensus of the two extreme views more or less depending on where and when you were. For example in ancient Greece we had no word for "gay" or homosexual" as you mention with your culture in our ancient speech. This was just part of the sexual habit(uations) people might enjoy, as far as we know of those whom were written about. Personally I believe this has now become more of a lifestyle than a sexuality in many ways and perhaps seeing this galvanises some people (like what we are seeing in many slavic countries) against this more nowadays. Would somebody again save the children...
The law saying it's illegal to call someone gay in Sweden and Iceland is like a 2022 meme
Well, the Spartans poked fun at each other.
Dude you really should have shouted down the Celtic thing. There is NOTHING except for Roman works stating that the Celts embraced homosexuality, even in what remains of their mythology. They were fairly obsessed with reproduction and the roles of men and women. But more importantly, you need to look at the culture of the Roman eras in question. When Rome began it's conquest of the Celts the Greek ideals of hedonism, homosexuality, and deviancy in general was regarded very poorly. It occurred, of course, but was not widely accepted. There was even low-key persecution of Bacchanalian revelries and orgies we're actually less common than people think. Because of this they depicted Celts as being homosexual and having an affinity for young boys, something the Romans heavily criticized the Greeks for. It was a part of their propaganda campaign alongside accusations of cannibalism and widespread human sacrifice. In the later era of Tacitus (literally over a hundred years after Caesar's conquering of Gaul and three hundred years after the Roman expansion into the Greco-Gallish coastal region) where clashes with the Germans grew, there was a distinct cultural shift within Rome where Greek ideals became more common place and sexually deviant behaviors were embraced at the highest levels of govt and the nobility.
Simply put, the Celts were not "pro-gay" and nothing indicates otherwise except for slanderous Roman and Greek writings which depicted the Celts as degenerate hedonists.
Yup. As someone who is related to the Picts/Celts. Simply put, we kicked their asses, and they were not happy about it. So anything and everything foul they could write about us was the thing to do. They hated Germanic tribes, and pictish/celts cause they could never get us under their control. We were to wild for them. So bad talking us was all they could do. Similar to how á kid in school who can't beat up the bully or is scared to fight, will go around and talk trash.
@@Thekoryostribalpodcast They had to justify their expansion. The Romans were on of the first peoples to truly understand the power of propaganda and they used it in every one of their wars not only to bolster the spirit of their own people but to drive away potential allies of their enemies. If you are a tribe and your neighbor is attacked and all you and your people hear is news of them eating people and having giant gay orgies you'll likely hesitate to take their side.
You sound homophobic. Being pro gay is the CORRECT stance
@Brandon Letzco 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What you are talking about was called damnatio memoriae, the Romans did not hate the Celts, most of the Romans were Celts, unlike other ancient cultures the Romans did not only practice wars of annihilation.
Where do you think the idea of putting gays in the bog came from? It came from Nordic/Germanic culture. LOL
Being gay in ancient Nordic/Germanic culture was dishonorable and was punishable by exile or death.
The sources from Pre Christian Celtic/Germanic contact suggests something very different from what you are saying: i.imgur.com/FXXykX0.png
@@Erik-dc7nf Britian is in Northern Europe. The Heruli tribe was from Denmark. And the Suebi tribe (not sure if I had that example included) was also in Germany East of the Rhine.
@@Erik-dc7nf "The later Danes actually drowned homosexuals in swamps."
No they didn't. You pulled that from a mistranslated quote from Tacitus Germania, an author who wrote that piece as a political rhetoric agiasnt Rome without ever having encountered the Germanic peoples.
"Why did late Rome grow so weak and degenerate even though it adopted Christianity?"
Rome after 350AD was actively executing people they thought were sodomites or committing sexual degeneracy. Coicidently around that time the native Roman birth rate plummeted and they were being replaced by people from the North they described as "perverse".
@@Erik-dc7nf It is very clear to historians that Christianity was the primary catalyst for the sexual moral ethics in Europe which you attempt to promote.
Just about every classical European tribe outside of extensive Christian influence had customs which would be totally obscene even to modern day far-left liberals.
If you want to idolize an ancient tribe for the sexual moral ethics you should consider the Isrealites and the Kingdoms of Judaea.
@@Erik-dc7nf You appear to be overlooking a very common behavior from my image source.
It's a sexual behavior that is illegal today and would be against CZcams terms of service to talk about here.
Once you understand that and how multiple sexual attractions back then was the norm you can start understanding the bigger picture.
Great work! Thank you for seeking the truth!
Pitcher and catcher,LOl. Although my impure thoughts on you would definitely get me stoned to death,LOL, 😂
Facts don’t care about feelings. I do not understand the modern day obsession of projecting (post)modern notions on history and in doing so erasing the facts of history and the true struggles of gays in history. It’s an insult to those that suffered. Thank you for doing this. This gay approves :)
I’m pretty gay and Looking at the some of the kids growing up today I can’t help but thing fuck some really need to experience some homophobia in their lives, especially the ones that act oppressed but will brake down if someone calling them their not preferred pronoun, it’s pathetic. I mean I was decently open about it in high school and hung out with most kinds of people. Personally I wouldn’t say I experienced any homophobia other then some subtle stigmatization and a little ball busting here and there but I’ve alway enjoyed homophobic jokes so it was never hard to come back with something and roll with the punches but it’s kinda sad when you realize other kids would be emotionally traumatized from that.
@@theangrydweller1002
Off you go to Shapiro.
Likewise truth is Asatru for the most part is a modern construct that bears little resemblance to ancient Nordic paganism , and has a lot aspects and ideas drawn from christian and nationalism, as well as a big dose of pseudoscience (metagenetics and such crap)
Very true. Also what should be noted is that while some communities had distain for someone participating in homosexual acts, they did not isolate or expel those people from kinship. The person could claim kinship, but still would still have to depend upon family relationships for protection than general 'unmanliness.' What is interesting is that this generally affected only men, and not women (lesbians). We see similar types of gender relationships in the world today. In many areas, Arabic men who are passive are in distain, where's active men are not considered 'gay'. In Asia, some societies frown on being gay, but mainly because children and ancestry are more important and a family obligation rather than an individual choice, and so gay relationships are frowned upon (or side relationships with their main familial obligation marriage).
We can't project your own concepts of gender upon ancient socities simply because some are uncomfortable with them. The Norse viewed the world very differently from us---with a confluence of gendered relationships, family obligations, religious institutions, and the power of taboo, fall somewhere in-between of the completely horrific views of LGBT relationships and today's much more accepting notions of gender. That actually makes them pretty advanced and accepting during their Age (when compared to other societies at their time)--both for the status of women and for LGBT folk. The majority of similar relationships bordering on "tolerance" rather than "acceptance" could be seen in a large portion of Native American societies, where more than two genders was the cultural accepted norm.
What really surprises me is that the Norse were a fairly warfaring or warlike society. Generally, in these socieities the need for progeny causes extremely harsh punishments for LGBT people to exist. This happens even in Native American societies where the most warlike were also the groups which punished male-to-male relationships the most. And yet, this was not the case in Scandinavia, where punishments ranged in scale from midly harsh to .... you're 'unmanly.' Now thralls, that's a different story. Yikes.
In other words, homophobia is irrational.
Possibly, i also think ancient people understood the public health hazard these people bring.
@@simdal3088 Like what? As if straight people can’t get AIDS or other STDs.
There are people in this comment section who are just as evil in their views on homosexuality
@@IanM92 so why are you here? to complain about someone else's view of the world? You will never force the entire world to bow down to your view so get over it.
I guess I'm a little immature but this was so funny. I love you bluntness.😂
The fury horns though 😂
Why are so many gays forcing their beliefs on kids in schools?
Because "letting people do what they want in the privacy of their own homes" Was a trick to get everyone to accept all this crap.
What’s wrong with being a happy Viking?
Mr. Arith Hårger says otherwise.
All jokes aside I like your approach to this matter. Veldig godt video 👍
Is he Ube Lothbrok from the Viking series?
I am Germanic and Scandinavian, I have done a lot of studying and research about the Viking age and Odinism and Wotanism. During these Pagan times any homosexual Act was dealt with swiftly. Ranging from castration and banishment, to Swift Death By The Sword. It was looked at as an act of cowardice and unmanly.
I've looked into it. it seemed more bottoming was what was looked down upon, the active individual seemingly got off. the only source saying the ancient Germans punished all homosexuality is Tacitus, who had never been to Germania and was trying to teach a moral lesson. even then, knowing Roman ideas on it (or lack thereof), it's likely he meant bottoms were thrown into bogs. obviously not very PC today but it does add context. the only ancient people I could find who opposed both the active and bottom roles were the Israelites. another interesting thing is the ancient Germans saw magic as something women do
@@ManiacMayhem7256 "got off" I'll say!! 😱😂
@@doomguy9049
Lmao
@@ManiacMayhem7256 its called humiliation, like recently russian soldier castrated Ukrainian pow, people back in the day were much more cruel, raping defeated men, it was belittling to men to be like women.
@@lostplanet1931
Yes absolutely. Prison mentality. And Azov tortures Russians just the same. Eye for an eye spiral
The only way that it would make sense to punish somebody for calling another person such names is if being guilty of such offences could carry a harsh punishment. Thus, calling somebody out falsely would equate a perjury, a difamation.
This goes to show that yes, such deeds were indeed illegal in all those places where accusing somebody of it wrongly would also result in a punishment.
Slander is lying. Isn’t lying a crime enough of itself, no matter what the topic of the lie is? Someone lying about someone else does not mean the topic they lied about was considered bad or wrong by society.
@@emilygrae Why didnt they just write "punishnent for the liars" in law then and specifically mention homosexuality? Maybe because homosexuality was not normal in the eyes of a society of vikings dont you think? Also considering the fact old germanic tribes punished them too there is no reason to believe that all germanics in the Norse BUT norwegians (gays were punished in Norway) somehow randomly started to tolerate them.
@@emilygrae Perhaps, but it is lying that is being discussed here, but lying about that specific topic being directed at one specific demographic. Ockham's razor and Roman law teaches us that it is far more likely that the crimes we intend to call upon others bear a punishment if we lie, but not if we simply lie about, for example, whether or not you have a blue house or a dog named Rocky. Those last lies are harmless because their being true bears no consequence to the tribe.
@@yochema95 My point though was proven when you said, "Perhaps". All I was saying really was that you shouldn't say "thusly" when it's not something you can prove. Ockham's razor is about not being overly complicated about something, not about allowing you to jump to conclusions without having all the details. I'm not saying you're wrong, only that you can't say for sure that you're "thusly" correct in your conjecture.
It is a punishable offense not necessarily because there was _legal_ punishment so much as negative repercussions. Any sort of slight to your reputation had (and has) serious bearing on how (and whether) people interact with you, affects your profession/business, and your status within social networks. While I agree that it does imply that being accused of homosexuality was a major concern, it does not necessarily imply that the concern was legal in nature.
Brother- I am so glad I found your channel. 👍🏻
What I heard, read can't remember is you weren't considered the Gay if you were the one to commit the act, the one who received it then it was a violation to to their honour....but then they could reclaim it through a duel!....Like a prison style degradation or dominance, not sure if that's true I'll shut up now and watch the rest of video though!
Edit:
I'm subscribing man Just been looking at the content, what a interesting channel!!
Well made video.
"As long as you don't force your views on others."
I think that is why people are angry about this subject in modern times.
Yes because homophobic and transphobic people keep trying to prevent lgbt people from living their lives.