I think it's worth pointing out that it's the Gitpi Lnu who are the ones whose land is being encroached on. The Lnu are not a monolith or unified.
The Vinland settlement may only be located within the vicinity of the Gitpi Lnu territory but all the Lnu people featured in the series so far are still ones who are inhabitants of Epekwitk/Prince Edward Island, which the Vinland settlers have encroached on by deciding to make the settlement on the island. Like the Gitpi Lnu are certainly the ones who are and have been most directly affected, but the entirety of the island Lnu qualify as having been encroached upon by some degree regarldess of whether the island tribes are unified or not.
A shield is used only for battle. It invites the same problems as a fortress. Both are defensive, but being on the defensive means that you're expecting a fight.
Fair enough, but the fact that their utility is primarily defensive in purpose does make some difference, as we saw in the difference between the manner Thorfinn reacted to learning about the construction of the fortress wall compared to his reaction of learning that Ivar smuggled a sword. Thorfinn certainly protested and disagreed with the construction of the former but he didn't immediately resort to using his authority as a de facto leader of the settlers to demand that it be destroyed like he initially attempted with Ivar's sword. So while it is certainly likely Thorfinn would discourage anyone from bringing a shield, I don't think it he would count it as falling under the key qualification of it being a "tool that's only been created for the purpose of killing other people", as while a shield is certainly a tool that was made for someone expecting a potential fight, it's primary purpose is for protecting the user's life, and not taking/harming another person.
I agree, but I think Thorfinn's method of going about it is inherently flawed. He fled to a place that was already populated. He's aware that his mere presence in Vinland provokes conflict, hence why he was careful about where they landed, but did it anyway. That's not minimization. It seems like the author is going to touch on this point more, probably in retrospect after the Norse flee.
I mean Thorfinn was very aware of this flaw/issue from the start, he was very much aware of Vinland being populated. But the point of his endeavor (and the narrative itself) was that he would still attempt to achieve his nigh impossible dream of making a land of peace away from Europe. Of course as we know from history, the project was always going to fail (since it it doesn't look like Yukimura is doing an extreme alternate history story a la Tarantino).
Unlike Ivar, who is portrayed as naive and largely incompetent, Ga'aoqi is shown to be a competent raider and fighter. He laid a good ambush, kills and maims without hesitation or remorse, and can accurately gauge threats. It's reasonable to assume he has experience.
Oh I am sure Ga'aoqi has experience to some degree, but that doesn't automatically mean he and his tribe regularly depended on raiding other tribes/nations as their way of life, like it was for vikings like Askeladd and his band. That's what I meant by "able act on said impulses regularly".
The Gitpi Lnu don't seem to fight much, if at all, given that Plmk is their one outspoken warrior and seemed naive (plus his scar is clearly from an animal). He's just a friendly guy so he didn't pull an Ivar. The other tribes, though? They're described as warrior tribes and immediately got in a brawl when arguing. Ga'aoqi alone shows that there's some form of conflict between tribes.
There were definitely other Gitpi Lnu warriors besides Plmk though (whether they survived the plague is of course another matter entitely), Plmk was just the one with the most narrative focus.
Also I went back and checked the previous chapters and none of the tribes have explicitly been described as being warrior and/or war-like tribes. The gathered warriors have come from numerous island Lnu tribes, but none of the other tribes themselves as a whole have been given descriptions of whether they are more or less war-like than the Gitpi Lnu are/were.
At most we could maybe infer that the Mu'in Lnu tribe is possibly more inclined to war than the Gitpi Lnu are/were, since their chief Mu'in describes himself as a warrior and Niskawaji'j described as someone who "likes fighting". But beyond that, we have been given no descriptions regarding whether the numerous other Lnu tribes are more war-like than the the Gitpi Lnu.
Also the big reason why the warriors from the various tribes got into a brawl is becuase of the diversity of opinion and disagreement they had as to whether they should accept Thorfinn's offer to willingly withdraw and be given until spring to do so, which goes to show that plenty of the Lnu warriors from the other tribes aren't gung-ho about unnecessary conflict. And as I mentioned earlier there isn't any evidence to suggest that island Lnu depended on regular raiding like some vikings did.
Talking about reducing chances in a narrative like this feels foolish since the sword isn't just a sword, it's a symbol of the willingness to enact violence. If you take the sword as an object too literally then the narrative becomes that swords really do have a magical power that compels you to take and use them, which is obviously not what the author is arguing. He was concerned enough with people taking the wrong thing from the work that he had Hild and Thorfinn discuss it explicitly.
I know, but you're still putting too much emphasis on it. It represents a willingness to enact violence/wage war/etc. It's not just a sword. Even if you take the literal approach, the same thing would've happened with any steel weapon. The Lnu were enamored by even small steel and iron tools. A battleaxe or mace would've had the same effect.
A large part of the narrative is how one reacts to a group that has something you want: Do you do what Thorfinn and Plmk wanted and trade for it, fostering ties? Or do you simply take it by force? Focusing on the literal beat-by-beat minor aspects of this is missing the forest for the trees. That's not how stories work, especially one like Vinland Saga.
I agree that sword is a symbol of the willingness to enact violence, and that it is not some magical object that compels one to use them. But part of why Ivar's sword in the story specifically drew attention from other Lnu like Ga'aoqi and chief Mu'in is is because it had been hidden it the very moment it was used, the Lnu had already been well aware of the other steel tools and potential weapons (their metal axes, spears, knives, etc.) of the Vinland settlers. So if Ivar had used a tool like a regular axe or spear to injure the shaman, while it certainly would have had still had a negative souring effect, it likely wouldn't have created a mythos for itself to the Lnu to the same degree like the sword ended up doing.
If you think I am putting too much emphasis on the sword, I am not doing it because it is a sword, but because it was the only tool brought that fell under the stipulation of Thorfinn's ban (i.el. a "tool that's only been created for the purpose of killing other people"), if Ivar had brought and/or used a mace or battleaxe (that had no use for chopping wood), I would be putting empahsis on those things instead as well. And the only reason why I had been putting emphasis on it was because I was debating that while Ivar and sword weren't the primary causes for things going to shit, they still held some responsiblity for what and how they contributed to things going to shit, hence why I discussed the hypotheticals of reducing chances (since I was using them to make a point from a Watosnian persepctive; I am very well aware of how it's largely irrelevant from a Doylisitc perspective, since there is no such thing as "chance" when analyzing a story in that context).
