• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

the Vandals and the Sack of Rome in 455

Rumpelstil said:
when the Vandals looted Rome in 455, they spared the people and the buildings.

the Vikings were less considerate.
Click to expand...

The Vandals most definitely did destroy buildings and take slaves during the sack of Rome. It would be fair to say that the sack of Rome wasn't particularly brutal considering the standards of the time.
 
What the Vikings were primarily interested in was arable land - something which was/is in short supply in Scandinavia. So they settled and ultimately assimilated into the local culture. What the Vandals wanted was booty - literally and figuratively. So they plundered and raped and ran away with whatever they could carry.
 
Rumpelstil said:
the Vandals got a bad name for what they did.
the Vikings were a lot worse, but are glorified.
Click to expand...

It's also a matter of scale. The Vandals are accused (perhaps unfairly) of causing the collapse of the Roman Empire, which has an almost deified status in Western culture. Conversely, the Vikings were pagan raiders that did some raping a torched a few churches, but ultimately converted in the end.

In general, historical tragedies tend to be selectively exaggerated by primary sources, particularly when the primary sources belong to the ultimately victorious party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom