Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2023
- Messages
- 55
Both the Norse and Aztecs waged war, raided, and sacrificed captives. However, the Norse did not wage wars solely for the gathering of war captives to sacrifice even though they could have. The Aztecs did. The relationship is inherently asymmetric.There is not enough information to make the claim that one was more moral than the other (in either direction), because we have no way of knowing what the Norse would have done if they'd had the same opportunities as the Aztecs. All we know is what they did with what they had.
Comparing them ethically is pointless in my opinion, but your argument for why it's pointless doesn't hold water.
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.But as I also said in my post, what the Lnu own isn't really relevant to the main issue I was discussing, since as I noted the Lnu are the ones who's land is being encroached upon by foreign settlers, and in such a situation, said latter party holds the greater burden and responsibility of establishing and maintaining peaceful relations.
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.(I doubt shields would be banned since its a tool who's primarily utility is for defense first and foremost)
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.. . . but the other main point of the narrative is that despite that tragic fact, people should still try and escape from and minimize conflict regardless. That the very pursuit of the impossible ideal is the right and ethical thing to do.
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.First off, we don't know whether Ga'aoqi regularly participated in raids on other Lnu tribes before, him being a warrior brute with a lust for power and violence doesn't guarantee that he actually was 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.And considering that the other Lnu tribes we've are all ones who live on the island, and there was no indication that the island tribes were in regular and frequent deadly conflicts with each other, that's evidence to suggest that raiding wasn't something super common among the Lnu of the island.
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.Furthermore, the Jomsvikings weren't risking the threat of exposure to an epidemic when they fought among themselves after they dissolved. Ga'aoqi's peers even noted that they were taking a risk by going on a raid, so I'd say that's even further evidence that if Ga'aoqi's primary motivation hadn't existed the likelhood of him and his peers iniating a raid would have indeed been smaller. Again that's not a gaurantee a raid wouldn't have happened, but I think it is foolish to try and claim that the chances wouldn't have been reduced if Ivar and his sword hadn't been an issue.
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.Also, as I have previously stated, I am not saying the sword by itself is sole difference maker . . .
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.