My Favorite Viking!

The person that I choose from all the sagas that we have read is Egil, and yes it is cliché because he is the stereotypical Viking. But this is exactly why I choose him, he seems to match the cultural depiction of Vikings, almost too well. I believe that our views on Vikings may have been based on Egils saga period. The stereotypical Viking does not show any cleverness, as in ref the sly, it is simply brute force and ignorance, all of which is embodied in Egil. He is a very “successful” person, at poetry, at maintaining his honor, and staying alive period. Egil was the person that the Christian Church was looking for, to demonize the Viking people, and it was this person whom they feared. Not to mention that Egil himself was just a cool guy. I think it shows a lot of his personality that he killed someone before he was a teenager, and managed to get himself out of certain death at the hands of the king of England. He is just a cool character. No wonder Snorri was fascinated with him, not to mention a relative of Egils’.

Ref The Sly

I thought that it was comical that Ref had a ship in his fortress that had wheels on it, and that they used it to escape. Perhaps this is a bit of imagination on the writers part, it doesn’t seem very practical, but it is cool nonetheless. But I guess that it is plausible to an extent, in the “unconventional” manner that Ref goes about things, and his out of the box thinking, I think that it is plausible, unlikely, but possible that this invention may have actually existed. I also thought that it was interesting that Ref claimed to never have crafted a ship, yet on his first try he made a grand ship, perhaps this is his “out of the box” thinking. The saga references several times that his fortifications looked like they were made of one large piece of wood, not a bunch of slabs, I think that this was his revolutionary out of the box thinking showing through. He pursued things in an unconventional manner and because so it awed the people of his time.

Vinland sagas!

The Vinland sagas were interesting and an enjoyable read. I thought that it was cool that both sagas refer to each other, not just that but accurately. They refer to Vinland and the plentiful of grapes and forest. This reassures me of the historical accuracy of these sagas. Not to mention that there were a few points that I thought were interesting. One of which was the natives, they were afraid of everything that the Vikings did, they were afraid of the Bull, and that part were Freydis hits her own breast with a sword and the natives run away terrified. Even though they had an army against her, not to mention she was pregnant. All of which suggest that she would have been a fairly easy target to capture or kill. But then again, if she was a very masculine woman, then maybe the natives might have been confused and as a result scared. Another brief thing I thought was cool was that in my book, on pg. 93 it mentions that the Vikings played chess to pass the time. I don’t know if this is a slight translation issue, but it says in a foot note that ivory chess pieces were found in Viking settlements. Chess, another Viking connection to the modern world.

Egils Saga Part 2

Egil embodies the stereotypical Viking. He is big, very brutal in his killings, and likes his poetry. Perhaps the stereotypical Viking was based around Egil. Vikings lived long before Egil, but Egil may have been one of the most memorable of them. Personally if I saw a person with Egils’ stature, I wouldn’t forget him easily. Not to mention that the stereotypical Viking is “bloodthirsty” which is seen in the saga all to often. Egil kills that one kid when Egil himself is only 7 or so. Later, Egil wins a duel by biting the one guy’s neck and ripping out his throat. This personifies the traditional Viking, but as the movies that we have seen repeatedly state, the “Viking” was tarnished but the few people that were like this. For example, the Viking ships, classic symbol of Vikings. But Vikings didn’t just use the ship, some Vikings had to have built it, which means that whoever built it would have been employed to use his skills in construction in other ships. A very simplistic example but the point is that Egil may have helped tarnish the “Viking” image and shape it to be one of rage, and brute force.

Egils Saga Part 1

While reading Egils Saga a few points and attributes stood out to me. First of all, in the very beginning of the saga, someone (who I don’t remember his name) died, and his wife decided to marry his brother. It didn’t sound to me like she had any grief over her dead husband. Understandably, those were different times, and remarrying after your spouse has died was probably a good idea. Marriage meant that you are not to only person running to household. Perhaps the wife thought that marrying her spouses’ brother might be having her husband back, if certain traits run in the family. Another point that stood out to me is that Egil is essentially a roving bandit. He is raiding merchants, towns, farmers, etc. This reminded me of an article that we read in Econ 198 last semester discussing the economics of roving bandits vs. a horrible tyrant. From an economics point of view, the tyrant (or king) is better off for the people, While bandits are very bad. Bandits would take everything and leave the farmer with virtually nothing, this is necessary for the bandits to continue living their lifestyle. While the Tyrant has taxes BUT he cannot overtax and take too much away from the people or he will have less to take from the people later when they recover. So from an economics stand point Egil is doing the exact thing that should not happen for economic growth and prosperity in Iceland.

Prose Edda Prologue

Reading this I thought that it was interesting the identical events that croesponded between this and Christianity, one being Adam and Eve, the other being Noah's flood. But it takes a completly new path, in mapping out where Thor and Odin come from. I also liked the fact that it mentions Troy and, after a little change in spelling through the years, Mennon, or that one guy from the Illiad. I found it very interesting that it claims that Odin came from Asia, and "settled" Germany, France, Denmark and met a king of Sweden. I thought that this was an interesting idea, that the northern countries of europe and central europe, they originally had indiginous peoples, but that they were settled by Asians. I got a chuckle out of reading that they thought that Turkey was the "center of the world"

Myths introduction

I thought that it was interesting that alot of t
he original meaning can be lost in translation. In the later part of the intorduction, it has to define "mythic past, Mythic present, and Mythic future". And how in a few of the entiries of the Gods' a particular phrase is defined as Army, but also may be Peoples. So I thought that it was interesting to think that, what misinterpretations are their in these myths translations? In addition to this I found it very cool that I have seen the names of these gods and monsters in the "western culture". I already knew about the days of the week beeing named after the Norse gods, but I didn't know that Fenrir was apart of norse mythology. I don't know if it is pronounce the same, but I knew this character from the Harry Potter series. In addition to this I recognized the Asgard from the Sci Fi series that I watch. I found it really cool that these names have not been practiced (wide spread) from centuries, and yet their legacy is still here.