Sure, but they made up a small fraction of the general population. If Assassin’s Creed Valhalla portrays the Norse as more capable of violence than contemporary christian society, that’s not some historical necessity, it’s a choice the developers made.
I’ll try to explain it as clearly as possible. We were just talking about the issue of the game disapproving of killing civilians. Monks in monasteries are the prime example of that because this is one of the few areas where you’re encouraged to fight an open battle in the presence of civilian people. In the previous game in the series, most civilians would fight back if attacked and the hero would be hunted down by mercenaries for attacking civilians. In this game, no such system exists and the game threatens to game over you if you kill civilians no matter who it is. People mostly notice this with monks.
I get that part, it just also ties into the earlier discussion of how the game chooses to represent these cultures.
Most of the modern research I’ve read suggests no. In fact, most of that research suggests that there was very little - if any - difference between Norse and Anglo-Saxons. Language-wise, they could make themselves understood to each other. Culturally, they were very similar - with the main exception being that of religion (though by the 900s, many Norse would have been Christian or Christian-Pagan). Anglo-Saxon lords also had to be “ring-givers” (as Uthred puts it in the Last Kingdom). They also regularly raided their neighbors for plunder and slaves (until the Norman conquest, Bristol was a major slave-trading port). The big difference between Anglo-Saxons and Norse was that the Norse had longships and a naval tradition which meant that where Anglo-Saxons raided the Welsh, the Scots, and each other - the Norse could raid everyone (without fear of retaliation) + unlike many Christians, had no compunction about raiding churches. The assimilation that happened in England in the North + the eventual conquest, was partially made possible thanks to the similarities. Cnut the Great could have himself crowned King of England because at the end of the day, there was relatively little difference between being King in England and being King in Denmark.
The majority of the Norse were farmers back in Scandinavia, living like most farmers would. A Viking raiding party would likely have better warriors than a local Anglo-Saxon levy, but that would be because the raiders are men who’d chosen to go raiding, whereas the levy wasn’t (though even in a raiding party, I suspect you’d find men who’d rather have stayed home). The large forces - essentially mercenary armies - that coalesced around Norse sea kings would obviously also eventually become hardened veterans (as any army will, once it’s fought enough). But on average, a regular Norse army would not have much advantage over a comparative Anglo-Saxon army - as the historical record of frequent Norse military defeats demonstrates.
The fearsome Viking reputation was primarily built on small raiding parties, having often carefully scouted out a location, assaulting a defenseless village or monastery at the break of dawn, killing any who resisted, stealing any valuables they could find, enslaving or taking for ransom those they deemed useful (and they went to great pains to capture good prospects), and then burning the location before retreating. Their motive was first and foremost profit - not killing or dying in battle.
For the Greeks, the question is more difficult. I’d say no, because Hoplites were primarily upper-middle class people (to be a Hoplite, you had to be wealthy enough to own the very expensive equipment - one of the big reasons for Sparta’s decline). But it doubtless depends on the state; Sparta was uniquely militarized (though built on a much larger population of slaves) and Athens during its height would have had very many poor people serving in its navy.
Making good progress on the game. Since I gather that there is at least one person reading the thread who isn’t yet playing, I’ll try to be judicious with spoilers.
Lots of random things just kind of happen in the game, moreso than I remember in earlier games. At one point, I’m galloping across an open area and a meteor strikes the ground just ahead of me. I was taken aback, was this the start of an alien invasion or something? But no, it just drops a bunch of iron in front of you, I guess in case you weren’t finding enough just sitting around out in the open.
One thing has come up that I kind of at least half expected: the dreaded blood eagle. I’ll spoiler the next part since it’s tied to the plot: so one of Ragnar’s sons, I forget now which one, actually performs the blood eagle on one of the kings that he bears a particular grudge against. I suppose I can give them credit for not actually showing it, though there are gruesome sounds and he does narrate what he’s doing at each step. I guess they aren’t afraid to represent some particular cruel actions on the part of the vikings.
Romantic relationships: interesting that those are now also part of the game, and you have multiple options for either sex, gay or straight. I went with Petra, the sister of the camp’s general store owner. She seems nice.
I don’t think this next part is terribly spoily, so I’ll just leave it in the open: funny to me how open Eivor is to mind-altering experiences. Camp’s seer wants him to look into his visions, hey no problem just gulping down her potion and passing out. Bunch of funny looking mushrooms sitting in a clearing? Eivor will totally chew on those, then chase elephant seals for the next few minutes. It cracks me up every time he leaps enthusiastically into whatever new trip fate throws his way.
Yeah, Castaneda has nothing on Eivor’s path to self-improvement. And I think you haven’t yet encountered times when Eivor is not entirely consensual with the whole affair.
My favourite line from female Eivor is her Tony the tiger response to some mushrooms - I feel grrreat :)
Well, I’ve reached a point that’s simultaneously thrilling, yet I’m in a dramatic low point. Probably just due to how I’ve personally structured the quests I’m pursuing. I’ll spoiler this next bit, it’s plot heavy:
So at a certain point, the king of (part of) England takes Eivor’s brother, the jarl, basically hostage. He’s got an insane cultist pre-Templar working for him, and she’s torturing the jarl, apparently amputating an arm in the process. Things look dire. I have a lead on where they might be, but I’m told that it will be heavily defended and that I really need to have my ducks in a row, have all the thanes in my back pocket so they’ll support me. So, I head off to another kingdom where I’m apparently helping its thane “divorce” his wife by pretending to kidnap her and send her back to her homeland, and then play matchmaker to get him a new girlfriend. Really? Is this the best use of our time? But I guess I need this guy and his army so I can get my brother back. I guess? Oh, and I went to Vinland to kill Gorm, the exiled son of the dude who killed my parents. That was kind of boring though, yet another little island that I needed to explore. But it was short at least.
Anyway, there’s one little thing that’s kind of been bugging me the entire game now. Most of the Saxons, or other English people, seem to refer to all the invaders as Danes. Which I guess everyone was ok with, including Eivor, since he didn’t correct the folks using that name. Though I would have thought he would identify as Norse, being from Norway and not Denmark. And I have encountered a couple of times when Eivor does tell people he’s Norse, that he’s from Norway, so I’m not really sure what’s correct here. I guess this doesn’t really matter much, but is Dane here used collectively at times, or are they just not worked up enough to correct anybody, just going ‘sure what the hell, I’m a Dane’. Just curious.
If you listen closely (or read the subtitles, like I do :)), Eivor fairly often corrects folks. Eivor points out the differences between Norse and Dane to more than a couple of people. I think one point they are making is that to the Saxons, any invader from the seas is a “Dane.” This I guess is to show the Saxons as fairly bigoted and unsophisticated, maybe, regardless of how accurate that might be. After all, does it really matter that much which part of Scandinavia the dudes come from who are wrecking your shire?
So, yeah, many (mostt?) Saxons in the game just say “Dane” to collectively mean all Viking types.
What I find most hilarious though is all of the big sieges you have to do, when in most cases I’ve already gone through targeted castle, killed everyone (except quest specific dudes who only spawn with the quest), and looted it dry. By myself.
In my experience, it’s only occasionally. Like less than half the time, others he just lets it slide. Which I figured might be because he didn’t care enough to make the correction, or the distinction wasn’t meaningful to him.
It’s quite possible our versions of “frequent” are different, because I felt it was more often than you do, but in any event, it is a sort of weird thing.
I probably wouldn’t have noticed it as much except it seems much more frequent as I get further into the game, which seemed contrary to me. Like early on, he would have corrected people for calling him a Dane, but eventually might have just gotten exasperated with the whole thing and said to hell with it. Maybe I’m just playing the game backwards though.
I felt like in the game, “Dane” was used like we currently use “Viking” to mean anyone wearing a helmet and furs invading medieval Britain from a longship.
I keep thinking of something like a Python routine:
“Hey, Dane!”
“I’m not a Dane.”
"What?"a
“I’m not a Dane. I’m Norse.”
“Whatever, you have an axe, you got off a ship, and now you’re burning the monastery! Definitely a Dane!”
“What, you think all us Scandinavians are alike? That you can switch us around like different brands of crisps? Oh, that’s some Saxon-privilege there, that is!”
“What?”
“Oh, forget it. Mind if I whack your head off?”
“Oh, no, no problem Go right ahead…Dane!”
It’s called the Danelaw, not the Norlaw!
“Norlaw” sounds like a database your attorney might consult, like Lexus/Nexus, only cheaper.
I can remember at least one spoiler-ish time when a character says “from your speech I understand you’re from Norway” and Eivor is pleased. Other times it sounds like he doesn’t care to correct people.
One issue is that several of these story chapters where developed in parallel and the Devs didn’t have a strong feeling for who Eivor is. Depending on a chapter he’s a wise poet or sometimes naive hillbilly, and that’s without touching world events. The series has this issue since AC3 but it’s obviously more visible in bigger games. I think Odyssey sidestepped the issue by having a more light-hearted story and allowing player choice.
I just remembered something that I felt was remarkable that happened a while back that I … never actually remarked on. Whoops, let’s rewind a week or so to when this actually happened. I think I can keep this vague enough to keep it from being terribly spoilery.
So you’ll notice that there are several wandering members of the secret society that you can beat up on. Much like in Origins and Odyssey, they’ll have good gear and often a clue to another higher-level secret society member, so it’s beneficial to take them out when possible. However they’re tough, very skilled, and usually fairly high level. So you’re going to have to wait a bit until it’s possible to take them on. Actually, I changed my mind, I’ll spoiler this next bit since it’s plot related: at a certain point, you can take over a section from one of the Saxon thanes, and you’re offered the chance to either kill or release his champion. He seemed a reasonable dude to me, acting out of loyalty to his liege, so I let him go. The guy was impressed enough that he told me that earlier, he had on orders from this king put my name on a piece of paper at a Roman statue - which would be picked up by someone from this secret society, and they would then turn all their efforts to killing me. BUT - if I get to the statue before that, I can burn the paper and they won’t know me, and therefore won’t hunt me.
Now I did something that I rarely do anymore in games: I took this seriously. I raced to the point, did the thing, and was told that I would not be hunted. I wonder if I had been too late, would that paper be gone? Would they have known my identity and started hunting me, kind of like the counterparts in Origins and Odyssey would hunt you if your notoriety rose? That’s kind of cool, if it could actually go either way.
If you don’t do that, the Zealots will actively hunt you like the dirty Norse dog you are. Otherwise, they just run around on their paths and will fight you if you engage them or agro them. At least, that’s my experience as I remember it.