Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

mrtwilightsparkle    

Rank #3144 on Comments
mrtwilightsparkle Avatar Level 231 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Offline
Send mail to mrtwilightsparkle Block mrtwilightsparkle Invite mrtwilightsparkle to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:12/16/2011
Last Login:10/23/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#3144
Highest Content Rank:#3321
Highest Comment Rank:#2400
Content Thumbs: 759 total,  916 ,  157
Comment Thumbs: 3490 total,  4406 ,  916
Content Level Progress: 50% (5/10)
Level 63 Content: FJ Cultist → Level 64 Content: FJ Cultist
Comment Level Progress: 18% (18/100)
Level 231 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 232 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:2
Content Views:50200
Times Content Favorited:25 times
Total Comments Made:1445
FJ Points:3783

latest user's comments

#148 - I really need a new account. Also coconuts are nasty.  [+] (1 new reply) 09/23/2014 on Tumblr bitch gets what she... 0
User avatar #152 - redstonealchemist (09/23/2014) [-]
they are nasty, but coconut milk is niiiiiice
#217 - I don't really see what's so bad about blood. Sure, it's a bit…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/23/2014 on old repost 0
#257 - fitta (09/23/2014) [-]
>the lady
>pony pic
I think I know what you mean
just a joke
User avatar #258 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/23/2014) [-]
No worries, I got a giggle.

I desperately need a new account
#144 - I don't have a problem with vegans, I've had a few friends who…  [+] (3 new replies) 09/23/2014 on Tumblr bitch gets what she... +2
User avatar #146 - redstonealchemist (09/23/2014) [-]
i'll stick to coconut milk (i've grown rather fond of it), but ea as you will, i shan't judge you.
mr sparkle.
User avatar #148 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/23/2014) [-]
I really need a new account.

Also coconuts are nasty.
User avatar #152 - redstonealchemist (09/23/2014) [-]
they are nasty, but coconut milk is niiiiiice
#135 - I wonder if any of these fifteen-year-old vegans realize that …  [+] (5 new replies) 09/23/2014 on Tumblr bitch gets what she... 0
User avatar #140 - redstonealchemist (09/23/2014) [-]
most of us vegans are actually pretty nice once you get to know us. it's just we get defensive really easily as would anyone whose interests are challenged.
it's possible that cow milk has a negative impact on the human body and it's possible that milking a cow is painful for the cow.
what is absolutely certain is that if humans didn't have a morbid obsession with dairy, this particular type of bovine wouldn't exist
User avatar #144 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/23/2014) [-]
I don't have a problem with vegans, I've had a few friends who were, and I've never minded catering to that preference for them; it's just the uneducated 15 year olds who have no clue what veganism really is, or why it's a thing that bother me.

And the cow thing is pretty strange, but nowadays, it's not worth arguing about. If you don't milk a dairy cow, it gets sick and could possibly die. So at this point in time, it's better to drink milk than not to, for the cow's sake. (That sounded rather silly).
User avatar #146 - redstonealchemist (09/23/2014) [-]
i'll stick to coconut milk (i've grown rather fond of it), but ea as you will, i shan't judge you.
mr sparkle.
User avatar #148 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/23/2014) [-]
I really need a new account.

Also coconuts are nasty.
User avatar #152 - redstonealchemist (09/23/2014) [-]
they are nasty, but coconut milk is niiiiiice
#238 - Because it's a country that was created in order to allow peop…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/18/2014 on USA fact comp 0
User avatar #239 - alstorp (09/18/2014) [-]
Oh
#197 - The fact that America's lack of a national language is conside…  [+] (3 new replies) 09/18/2014 on USA fact comp +1
User avatar #213 - alstorp (09/18/2014) [-]
How so?
#238 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/18/2014) [-]
Because it's a country that was created in order to allow people from anywhere to come and be equal (Except black people, apparently). It's supposed to be common knowledge in America that there is no official language, but that's evidenced otherwise by this retarded shirt/bumper sticker/etc. (pic related).
User avatar #239 - alstorp (09/18/2014) [-]
Oh
#14 - I'm not a huge pokemon fan, but the one with Mewtwo gets me ev… 09/15/2014 on For Stoicnick - The Cubone... +1
#11 - Because we were going for factual accuracy in the OP, right? 09/15/2014 on why banan a is more banana +4
#83 - To be fair, this was the first large-scale terrorist attack on… 09/14/2014 on opinion time 0
#198 - Wow, **** all of you for not appreciating hoop an…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/13/2014 on the last kid saved it 0
#217 - dronenortle (09/13/2014) [-]
No Mr.Twlightsparkle, YOU should go kill yourself.
#275 - Alright, I'm giving up here. You're assuming that the "op…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/13/2014 on (untitled) 0
#276 - popeflatus (09/13/2014) [-]
Science isn't an 'opinion'. You claim that the findings of science are 'nonexistent' which is baffling. Historians do not in general believe the bible to be true en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible and the opinions of theologians have no merit as they are unable to demonstrate their claims.

Everyone has some form of judgmental attitude but what matters is that claims are demonstrated.
#273 - Because I'm basing my decisions off of opinions and findings o…  [+] (3 new replies) 09/13/2014 on (untitled) 0
#274 - popeflatus (09/13/2014) [-]
What opinions and findings are you talking about? Science has shown that Adm and Eve never existed and that the flood spoken of in Genesis never happened. When science shows claims to be utterly false, an anecdote and an opinion mean nothing. If you think that now people are not using the bible to make money I must suggest that you open your eyes my friend. One only needs to look at the immense tax-free wealth of religion to baulk at that statement of yours.

User avatar #275 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/13/2014) [-]
Alright, I'm giving up here. You're assuming that the "opinions and findings" of historians and theologians are nonexistent, yet you throw the "findings" of science at me which are also nonexistent. I never even implied that people were no longer using the Bible to make money. It's becoming more and more apparent that you're more interested in falsely justifying your judgmental attitude than to actually discuss anything.
#276 - popeflatus (09/13/2014) [-]
Science isn't an 'opinion'. You claim that the findings of science are 'nonexistent' which is baffling. Historians do not in general believe the bible to be true en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible and the opinions of theologians have no merit as they are unable to demonstrate their claims.

Everyone has some form of judgmental attitude but what matters is that claims are demonstrated.
#269 - First of all, it's not a threat. Secondly, the idea is that ev…  [+] (5 new replies) 09/13/2014 on (untitled) 0
#272 - popeflatus (09/13/2014) [-]
When someone says that you have to do as I say or I will burn you it is a threat, plain and simple. Saying that verses are misinterpreted is a total cop out. How can you prove that your understanding of the text is somehow superior to any other persons?
User avatar #273 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/13/2014) [-]
Because I'm basing my decisions off of opinions and findings of people who have devoted their entire life to the interpretation of the text, with access to modern resources and revolutionary finds, rather than religious officials 600 years ago who were in the Church for power and money. If claiming misinterpretations is a cop out, how is it any better to use arguments against me based on corrupted ideas meant to generate more wealth back in the Dark Ages?
#274 - popeflatus (09/13/2014) [-]
What opinions and findings are you talking about? Science has shown that Adm and Eve never existed and that the flood spoken of in Genesis never happened. When science shows claims to be utterly false, an anecdote and an opinion mean nothing. If you think that now people are not using the bible to make money I must suggest that you open your eyes my friend. One only needs to look at the immense tax-free wealth of religion to baulk at that statement of yours.

User avatar #275 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/13/2014) [-]
Alright, I'm giving up here. You're assuming that the "opinions and findings" of historians and theologians are nonexistent, yet you throw the "findings" of science at me which are also nonexistent. I never even implied that people were no longer using the Bible to make money. It's becoming more and more apparent that you're more interested in falsely justifying your judgmental attitude than to actually discuss anything.
#276 - popeflatus (09/13/2014) [-]
Science isn't an 'opinion'. You claim that the findings of science are 'nonexistent' which is baffling. Historians do not in general believe the bible to be true en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible and the opinions of theologians have no merit as they are unable to demonstrate their claims.

Everyone has some form of judgmental attitude but what matters is that claims are demonstrated.
#267 - I'm not saying most Christians are well informed about their o…  [+] (7 new replies) 09/13/2014 on (untitled) 0
#268 - popeflatus (09/13/2014) [-]
How am I hateful? Jesus said that the only way to heaven is through him as well as introducing the idea of endless damnation.

Do you not think that threatening someone with eternal torture is more hateful than just saying that the bible is bullshit?
User avatar #269 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/13/2014) [-]
First of all, it's not a threat. Secondly, the idea is that everyone, no matter how sinful, or despite what they believe in, according to the Christian faith, goes through Jesus and follows the same path as him to reach Heaven. This is one of those parts of the Bible that is very misinterpreted, much like the verse in the Quran that claims that all infidels must be eradicated.
#272 - popeflatus (09/13/2014) [-]
When someone says that you have to do as I say or I will burn you it is a threat, plain and simple. Saying that verses are misinterpreted is a total cop out. How can you prove that your understanding of the text is somehow superior to any other persons?
User avatar #273 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/13/2014) [-]
Because I'm basing my decisions off of opinions and findings of people who have devoted their entire life to the interpretation of the text, with access to modern resources and revolutionary finds, rather than religious officials 600 years ago who were in the Church for power and money. If claiming misinterpretations is a cop out, how is it any better to use arguments against me based on corrupted ideas meant to generate more wealth back in the Dark Ages?
#274 - popeflatus (09/13/2014) [-]
What opinions and findings are you talking about? Science has shown that Adm and Eve never existed and that the flood spoken of in Genesis never happened. When science shows claims to be utterly false, an anecdote and an opinion mean nothing. If you think that now people are not using the bible to make money I must suggest that you open your eyes my friend. One only needs to look at the immense tax-free wealth of religion to baulk at that statement of yours.

User avatar #275 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/13/2014) [-]
Alright, I'm giving up here. You're assuming that the "opinions and findings" of historians and theologians are nonexistent, yet you throw the "findings" of science at me which are also nonexistent. I never even implied that people were no longer using the Bible to make money. It's becoming more and more apparent that you're more interested in falsely justifying your judgmental attitude than to actually discuss anything.
#276 - popeflatus (09/13/2014) [-]
Science isn't an 'opinion'. You claim that the findings of science are 'nonexistent' which is baffling. Historians do not in general believe the bible to be true en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible and the opinions of theologians have no merit as they are unable to demonstrate their claims.

Everyone has some form of judgmental attitude but what matters is that claims are demonstrated.
#71 - And it wasn't her fault for being a ******* slut? 09/12/2014 on sweet revenge 0
#111 - That's probably closer to Agnosticism, really.  [+] (5 new replies) 09/12/2014 on (untitled) -1
#136 - YllekNayr (09/12/2014) [-]
User avatar #152 - articulate (09/12/2014) [-]
Am I an Agnostic Theist because I like to believe the universe is a great being that we live inside like the bacteria in our own bodies? I don't claim to KNOW it because I KNOW that we cannot truly KNOW things 100% because of how easily our minds are fooled.
User avatar #153 - YllekNayr (09/12/2014) [-]
Then yes, you are an agnostic theist
User avatar #154 - articulate (09/12/2014) [-]
Well, glad that's sorted. Feels like Harry Potter.
User avatar #156 - YllekNayr (09/12/2014) [-]
Heh.
Some people don't really know what agnosticism is, and they think it's a middle ground between atheism and theism, so I throw this chart around a lot.

You don't want to be a gnostic anything. Those are the kind of people nobody likes.
#110 - Alright, I'm gonna say something that people don't like: I…  [+] (9 new replies) 09/12/2014 on (untitled) +1
#210 - popeflatus (09/13/2014) [-]
Instead of hearing about 'join our cult or burn forever'. Do you think that is insulting?
User avatar #267 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/13/2014) [-]
I'm not saying most Christians are well informed about their own religion. In fact, most don't have a flying fuck what they're talking about. But for the most part, they are not nearly as hostile as people such as Gervais make them out to be. In fact, the idea of "Follow this god or face damnation" isn't a Christian custom. Christianity tells its disciples to be religiously tolerant, but to still try and spread their religion, as does Islam. Please, in the future, avoid being blindly hateful; apparently, that's what Christians do.
#268 - popeflatus (09/13/2014) [-]
How am I hateful? Jesus said that the only way to heaven is through him as well as introducing the idea of endless damnation.

Do you not think that threatening someone with eternal torture is more hateful than just saying that the bible is bullshit?
User avatar #269 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/13/2014) [-]
First of all, it's not a threat. Secondly, the idea is that everyone, no matter how sinful, or despite what they believe in, according to the Christian faith, goes through Jesus and follows the same path as him to reach Heaven. This is one of those parts of the Bible that is very misinterpreted, much like the verse in the Quran that claims that all infidels must be eradicated.
#272 - popeflatus (09/13/2014) [-]
When someone says that you have to do as I say or I will burn you it is a threat, plain and simple. Saying that verses are misinterpreted is a total cop out. How can you prove that your understanding of the text is somehow superior to any other persons?
User avatar #273 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/13/2014) [-]
Because I'm basing my decisions off of opinions and findings of people who have devoted their entire life to the interpretation of the text, with access to modern resources and revolutionary finds, rather than religious officials 600 years ago who were in the Church for power and money. If claiming misinterpretations is a cop out, how is it any better to use arguments against me based on corrupted ideas meant to generate more wealth back in the Dark Ages?
#274 - popeflatus (09/13/2014) [-]
What opinions and findings are you talking about? Science has shown that Adm and Eve never existed and that the flood spoken of in Genesis never happened. When science shows claims to be utterly false, an anecdote and an opinion mean nothing. If you think that now people are not using the bible to make money I must suggest that you open your eyes my friend. One only needs to look at the immense tax-free wealth of religion to baulk at that statement of yours.

User avatar #275 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/13/2014) [-]
Alright, I'm giving up here. You're assuming that the "opinions and findings" of historians and theologians are nonexistent, yet you throw the "findings" of science at me which are also nonexistent. I never even implied that people were no longer using the Bible to make money. It's becoming more and more apparent that you're more interested in falsely justifying your judgmental attitude than to actually discuss anything.
#276 - popeflatus (09/13/2014) [-]
Science isn't an 'opinion'. You claim that the findings of science are 'nonexistent' which is baffling. Historians do not in general believe the bible to be true en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible and the opinions of theologians have no merit as they are unable to demonstrate their claims.

Everyone has some form of judgmental attitude but what matters is that claims are demonstrated.
#31 - Read the title. It makes it funnier. Also, 99.9999999… 09/09/2014 on Sometimes, I watch tennis. 0
#298 - Another little fun-fact; People consider barbarians to be uncu… 09/09/2014 on A message across the millenia. 0
#297 - People from Normandy weren't always Normans. Charlemagne was. …  [+] (1 new reply) 09/09/2014 on A message across the millenia. 0
#302 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
Say what?

"The Vikings started to raid the Seine Valley during the middle of 9th century. After attacking and destroying monasteries, including one at Jumièges, they took advantage of the power vacuum created by the disintegration of Charlemagne's empire to take northern France. The fiefdom of Normandy was created for the Norwegian/Danish Viking leader Hrolf Ragnvaldsson, or Rollo (also known as Robert of Normandy). Rollo had besieged Paris but in 911 entered vassalage to the king of the West Franks, Charles the Simple, through the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte. In exchange for his homage and fealty, Rollo legally gained the territory which he and his Viking allies had previously conquered. The name "Normandy" reflects Rollo's Viking (i.e. "Northman") origins." From wikipedia, the normandy article.

Someone else would have discovered it by the time people started studying volcanos.

You are right north africans did alot of raping and pilaging too.
#291 - "Their herierchy wasnt any more advanced than feudalism&q…  [+] (13 new replies) 09/09/2014 on A message across the millenia. 0
#296 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
So everyone from normandy must be a decendant of the norse eh? Just like everyone in america is a decendant from the native americans, r-right?

There are plenty of Volcanos around the world and its not like the geological studies started in iceland.

We were talking about how Romo/Greek civilization was better than the scandinavian one. The content is about a work of art beeing desecrated by a savage, even tho the romans did that in egypt too...
#299 - comradewinter (09/09/2014) [-]
Your argument is that Africans were more advanced than Norse people, which is bullshit. Of course Greece and Rome was more advanced. They were the most advanced at the time, and probably the most advanced civilizations ever compared to their time.
#300 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
Look at aincient egypt and northern africa.
#307 - comradewinter (09/09/2014) [-]
You mean the regions founded by Middle Easterners?

Egypt was founded by nomads hailing from somewhere in the Middle East, possibly the Syrian region. Hence why their Pharaohs and nobles had Eastern origins. It was later built upon by Alexander the Great, after it showed a decline. A Macedonian.

Northern Africa is a bit of a big area to cover, but you're probably referring to Carthage and Numidia.

Carthage was founded by Poenicians, who came from the Middle East as well, assumingly from the Israeli region we know it as today. However, despite their impressive architecture, were savages. During the first Punic war they sacrificed their own children to their Gods for good fortune, and were fond of massacring their opponents.

The Numidians were tribal, being Massylii and Masaesyli respectively. They were mostly savage, and had little architecture to speak of. The little they had was built primarily by the Punic Carthagenians. After Carthage fell, the responsibility fell upon the Romans, who continued the work.

All in all, none of these were built by African natives. It would be like crediting the US to the Native Americans. They got slaughtered and replaced.
#310 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
What about Ethiopia or Mali?
#318 - comradewinter (09/09/2014) [-]
Ethiopia was built by native Ethiopians with massive assistance from the Sabeans, who were Middle Easterners. The subsequent development was orchestrated by Christians and Muslims, hailing from Europe and the Middle East respectively.

The Mali Empire was founded by Muslims from the Middle East, building upon the Ghana Empire which was also assisted by Muslims.

There wasn't really anything impressive about either of these, neither. The Great Mosque of Djenné in Mali looks nice, but the architect had Middle Eastern origins and it was economically supported by Middle Eastern benefactors.

And don't even mention the Zulu Empire. The region was large due to fighting with other weaker tribes, but was put down when they couldn't fight British Machineguns with spears and shields.
#323 - dehumanizer (09/10/2014) [-]
Still more advanced than the vikings. Atleast they had made something even with help. Vikings didnt do that till the late renisanse.
#327 - comradewinter (09/10/2014) [-]
We had the most advanced ships, blades that everyone envied, heavy armor, and a thrist for conquest. I don't suppose you know who laid the foundations for just about most of Europe? Africans stayed in Africa, and got pushed back whenever they dealt with anyone not from the region.
#325 - cherubium (09/10/2014) [-]
Didn't do what? build kingdoms?
#321 - cherubium (09/09/2014) [-]
Dehumanizer has a severe case of taking offense about the fact that his anceastors got buttfucked hard by Vikings so he has dedicated his life to spouting "Vikings were just barbarians!!!!!11!!" and all around is just /pol/ presonified which is pretty hilarious in itself.
#322 - dehumanizer (09/10/2014) [-]
Not really no.
User avatar #297 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/09/2014) [-]
People from Normandy weren't always Normans. Charlemagne was.

Iceland is still important for geological studies.

You specifically were talking about how Scandinavians "weren't" as advanced as Africa. This debate between you and I never had anything to do with Greco Roman civilization. In fact, in my first comment, I even said that Hellenistic cultures were more advanced than Scandinavians, in my opinion.
#302 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
Say what?

"The Vikings started to raid the Seine Valley during the middle of 9th century. After attacking and destroying monasteries, including one at Jumièges, they took advantage of the power vacuum created by the disintegration of Charlemagne's empire to take northern France. The fiefdom of Normandy was created for the Norwegian/Danish Viking leader Hrolf Ragnvaldsson, or Rollo (also known as Robert of Normandy). Rollo had besieged Paris but in 911 entered vassalage to the king of the West Franks, Charles the Simple, through the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte. In exchange for his homage and fealty, Rollo legally gained the territory which he and his Viking allies had previously conquered. The name "Normandy" reflects Rollo's Viking (i.e. "Northman") origins." From wikipedia, the normandy article.

Someone else would have discovered it by the time people started studying volcanos.

You are right north africans did alot of raping and pilaging too.
#286 - Well, they contributed the entire population of Europe, for on…  [+] (15 new replies) 09/09/2014 on A message across the millenia. 0
#289 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
France was made by Charlemange (even tho he called it roman empire for the lulz), combs were discovered back in neolitic era.

Greenland and Iceland are of no historical revelancy to the world and the North American settlement was a disaster and the continent might have been discovered earlier by an Irish monk.

Their herierchy wasnt any more advanced than feudalism. While greeks had democracy even B.C.


User avatar #291 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/09/2014) [-]
"Their herierchy wasnt any more advanced than feudalism"

Do you even know when feudalism was a common thing? That's the same time they were around, ergo, that's the time they should have been in.

Charlemagne was a Norman. Which is offspring of the Vikings in France. Everyone in France was a Norman.

Iceland is a heavily volcanic area, making it important for scientific observations.

And to your point about the Greeks;
Cool. We weren't even talking about the Greeks. Your arguments are shit, and it's becoming pretty clear you never got past the seventh grade in history class.
#296 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
So everyone from normandy must be a decendant of the norse eh? Just like everyone in america is a decendant from the native americans, r-right?

There are plenty of Volcanos around the world and its not like the geological studies started in iceland.

We were talking about how Romo/Greek civilization was better than the scandinavian one. The content is about a work of art beeing desecrated by a savage, even tho the romans did that in egypt too...
#299 - comradewinter (09/09/2014) [-]
Your argument is that Africans were more advanced than Norse people, which is bullshit. Of course Greece and Rome was more advanced. They were the most advanced at the time, and probably the most advanced civilizations ever compared to their time.
#300 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
Look at aincient egypt and northern africa.
#307 - comradewinter (09/09/2014) [-]
You mean the regions founded by Middle Easterners?

Egypt was founded by nomads hailing from somewhere in the Middle East, possibly the Syrian region. Hence why their Pharaohs and nobles had Eastern origins. It was later built upon by Alexander the Great, after it showed a decline. A Macedonian.

Northern Africa is a bit of a big area to cover, but you're probably referring to Carthage and Numidia.

Carthage was founded by Poenicians, who came from the Middle East as well, assumingly from the Israeli region we know it as today. However, despite their impressive architecture, were savages. During the first Punic war they sacrificed their own children to their Gods for good fortune, and were fond of massacring their opponents.

The Numidians were tribal, being Massylii and Masaesyli respectively. They were mostly savage, and had little architecture to speak of. The little they had was built primarily by the Punic Carthagenians. After Carthage fell, the responsibility fell upon the Romans, who continued the work.

All in all, none of these were built by African natives. It would be like crediting the US to the Native Americans. They got slaughtered and replaced.
#310 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
What about Ethiopia or Mali?
#318 - comradewinter (09/09/2014) [-]
Ethiopia was built by native Ethiopians with massive assistance from the Sabeans, who were Middle Easterners. The subsequent development was orchestrated by Christians and Muslims, hailing from Europe and the Middle East respectively.

The Mali Empire was founded by Muslims from the Middle East, building upon the Ghana Empire which was also assisted by Muslims.

There wasn't really anything impressive about either of these, neither. The Great Mosque of Djenné in Mali looks nice, but the architect had Middle Eastern origins and it was economically supported by Middle Eastern benefactors.

And don't even mention the Zulu Empire. The region was large due to fighting with other weaker tribes, but was put down when they couldn't fight British Machineguns with spears and shields.
#323 - dehumanizer (09/10/2014) [-]
Still more advanced than the vikings. Atleast they had made something even with help. Vikings didnt do that till the late renisanse.
#327 - comradewinter (09/10/2014) [-]
We had the most advanced ships, blades that everyone envied, heavy armor, and a thrist for conquest. I don't suppose you know who laid the foundations for just about most of Europe? Africans stayed in Africa, and got pushed back whenever they dealt with anyone not from the region.
#325 - cherubium (09/10/2014) [-]
Didn't do what? build kingdoms?
#321 - cherubium (09/09/2014) [-]
Dehumanizer has a severe case of taking offense about the fact that his anceastors got buttfucked hard by Vikings so he has dedicated his life to spouting "Vikings were just barbarians!!!!!11!!" and all around is just /pol/ presonified which is pretty hilarious in itself.
#322 - dehumanizer (09/10/2014) [-]
Not really no.
User avatar #297 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/09/2014) [-]
People from Normandy weren't always Normans. Charlemagne was.

Iceland is still important for geological studies.

You specifically were talking about how Scandinavians "weren't" as advanced as Africa. This debate between you and I never had anything to do with Greco Roman civilization. In fact, in my first comment, I even said that Hellenistic cultures were more advanced than Scandinavians, in my opinion.
#302 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
Say what?

"The Vikings started to raid the Seine Valley during the middle of 9th century. After attacking and destroying monasteries, including one at Jumièges, they took advantage of the power vacuum created by the disintegration of Charlemagne's empire to take northern France. The fiefdom of Normandy was created for the Norwegian/Danish Viking leader Hrolf Ragnvaldsson, or Rollo (also known as Robert of Normandy). Rollo had besieged Paris but in 911 entered vassalage to the king of the West Franks, Charles the Simple, through the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte. In exchange for his homage and fealty, Rollo legally gained the territory which he and his Viking allies had previously conquered. The name "Normandy" reflects Rollo's Viking (i.e. "Northman") origins." From wikipedia, the normandy article.

Someone else would have discovered it by the time people started studying volcanos.

You are right north africans did alot of raping and pilaging too.
#116 - Alright, you clearly don't understand a single thing about his…  [+] (17 new replies) 09/09/2014 on A message across the millenia. +2
#127 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
And how are they better than Samoans or aboriginals? What did they contribute to mankind? Nothing, they were simple brutes just existing and going to war from time to time.
User avatar #286 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/09/2014) [-]
Well, they contributed the entire population of Europe, for one, and they made France, and won the battle of Hastings. They also made advancements in what is basic hygiene to us now, such as the comb, which didn't exist anywhere else. They also created the first practical version of the magnetic compass. The Chinese created the first one, I believe, but it wasn't exactly useful. Vikings also created Greenland, Iceland, and found North America.

The Vikings also had a hierarchical culture that was quite in depth and advanced. African cultures of the time decided wealth by how many yams you had, and how many people you had killed. Your goal in life would have been to be physically stronger than everyone else. Aboriginal cultures existed solely through oral tradition with no writing, and technologically, hardly passed the stone age for tens of thousands of years.
#289 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
France was made by Charlemange (even tho he called it roman empire for the lulz), combs were discovered back in neolitic era.

Greenland and Iceland are of no historical revelancy to the world and the North American settlement was a disaster and the continent might have been discovered earlier by an Irish monk.

Their herierchy wasnt any more advanced than feudalism. While greeks had democracy even B.C.


User avatar #291 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/09/2014) [-]
"Their herierchy wasnt any more advanced than feudalism"

Do you even know when feudalism was a common thing? That's the same time they were around, ergo, that's the time they should have been in.

Charlemagne was a Norman. Which is offspring of the Vikings in France. Everyone in France was a Norman.

Iceland is a heavily volcanic area, making it important for scientific observations.

And to your point about the Greeks;
Cool. We weren't even talking about the Greeks. Your arguments are shit, and it's becoming pretty clear you never got past the seventh grade in history class.
#296 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
So everyone from normandy must be a decendant of the norse eh? Just like everyone in america is a decendant from the native americans, r-right?

There are plenty of Volcanos around the world and its not like the geological studies started in iceland.

We were talking about how Romo/Greek civilization was better than the scandinavian one. The content is about a work of art beeing desecrated by a savage, even tho the romans did that in egypt too...
#299 - comradewinter (09/09/2014) [-]
Your argument is that Africans were more advanced than Norse people, which is bullshit. Of course Greece and Rome was more advanced. They were the most advanced at the time, and probably the most advanced civilizations ever compared to their time.
#300 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
Look at aincient egypt and northern africa.
#307 - comradewinter (09/09/2014) [-]
You mean the regions founded by Middle Easterners?

Egypt was founded by nomads hailing from somewhere in the Middle East, possibly the Syrian region. Hence why their Pharaohs and nobles had Eastern origins. It was later built upon by Alexander the Great, after it showed a decline. A Macedonian.

Northern Africa is a bit of a big area to cover, but you're probably referring to Carthage and Numidia.

Carthage was founded by Poenicians, who came from the Middle East as well, assumingly from the Israeli region we know it as today. However, despite their impressive architecture, were savages. During the first Punic war they sacrificed their own children to their Gods for good fortune, and were fond of massacring their opponents.

The Numidians were tribal, being Massylii and Masaesyli respectively. They were mostly savage, and had little architecture to speak of. The little they had was built primarily by the Punic Carthagenians. After Carthage fell, the responsibility fell upon the Romans, who continued the work.

All in all, none of these were built by African natives. It would be like crediting the US to the Native Americans. They got slaughtered and replaced.
#310 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
What about Ethiopia or Mali?
#318 - comradewinter (09/09/2014) [-]
Ethiopia was built by native Ethiopians with massive assistance from the Sabeans, who were Middle Easterners. The subsequent development was orchestrated by Christians and Muslims, hailing from Europe and the Middle East respectively.

The Mali Empire was founded by Muslims from the Middle East, building upon the Ghana Empire which was also assisted by Muslims.

There wasn't really anything impressive about either of these, neither. The Great Mosque of Djenné in Mali looks nice, but the architect had Middle Eastern origins and it was economically supported by Middle Eastern benefactors.

And don't even mention the Zulu Empire. The region was large due to fighting with other weaker tribes, but was put down when they couldn't fight British Machineguns with spears and shields.
#323 - dehumanizer (09/10/2014) [-]
Still more advanced than the vikings. Atleast they had made something even with help. Vikings didnt do that till the late renisanse.
#327 - comradewinter (09/10/2014) [-]
We had the most advanced ships, blades that everyone envied, heavy armor, and a thrist for conquest. I don't suppose you know who laid the foundations for just about most of Europe? Africans stayed in Africa, and got pushed back whenever they dealt with anyone not from the region.
#325 - cherubium (09/10/2014) [-]
Didn't do what? build kingdoms?
#321 - cherubium (09/09/2014) [-]
Dehumanizer has a severe case of taking offense about the fact that his anceastors got buttfucked hard by Vikings so he has dedicated his life to spouting "Vikings were just barbarians!!!!!11!!" and all around is just /pol/ presonified which is pretty hilarious in itself.
#322 - dehumanizer (09/10/2014) [-]
Not really no.
User avatar #297 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/09/2014) [-]
People from Normandy weren't always Normans. Charlemagne was.

Iceland is still important for geological studies.

You specifically were talking about how Scandinavians "weren't" as advanced as Africa. This debate between you and I never had anything to do with Greco Roman civilization. In fact, in my first comment, I even said that Hellenistic cultures were more advanced than Scandinavians, in my opinion.
#302 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
Say what?

"The Vikings started to raid the Seine Valley during the middle of 9th century. After attacking and destroying monasteries, including one at Jumièges, they took advantage of the power vacuum created by the disintegration of Charlemagne's empire to take northern France. The fiefdom of Normandy was created for the Norwegian/Danish Viking leader Hrolf Ragnvaldsson, or Rollo (also known as Robert of Normandy). Rollo had besieged Paris but in 911 entered vassalage to the king of the West Franks, Charles the Simple, through the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte. In exchange for his homage and fealty, Rollo legally gained the territory which he and his Viking allies had previously conquered. The name "Normandy" reflects Rollo's Viking (i.e. "Northman") origins." From wikipedia, the normandy article.

Someone else would have discovered it by the time people started studying volcanos.

You are right north africans did alot of raping and pilaging too.
#68 - That's.. That's not what I was saying at all. Not to mention, …  [+] (19 new replies) 09/09/2014 on A message across the millenia. +3
#72 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
VIDF pls, while the proto sweedes were busy killing villagers and then runing away from every conventional army, the africans in ethiopia managed to build pic related. Carved it right out of solid stone.
User avatar #116 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/09/2014) [-]
Alright, you clearly don't understand a single thing about history other than someone's ability to chisel stone.
#127 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
And how are they better than Samoans or aboriginals? What did they contribute to mankind? Nothing, they were simple brutes just existing and going to war from time to time.
User avatar #286 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/09/2014) [-]
Well, they contributed the entire population of Europe, for one, and they made France, and won the battle of Hastings. They also made advancements in what is basic hygiene to us now, such as the comb, which didn't exist anywhere else. They also created the first practical version of the magnetic compass. The Chinese created the first one, I believe, but it wasn't exactly useful. Vikings also created Greenland, Iceland, and found North America.

The Vikings also had a hierarchical culture that was quite in depth and advanced. African cultures of the time decided wealth by how many yams you had, and how many people you had killed. Your goal in life would have been to be physically stronger than everyone else. Aboriginal cultures existed solely through oral tradition with no writing, and technologically, hardly passed the stone age for tens of thousands of years.
#289 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
France was made by Charlemange (even tho he called it roman empire for the lulz), combs were discovered back in neolitic era.

Greenland and Iceland are of no historical revelancy to the world and the North American settlement was a disaster and the continent might have been discovered earlier by an Irish monk.

Their herierchy wasnt any more advanced than feudalism. While greeks had democracy even B.C.


User avatar #291 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/09/2014) [-]
"Their herierchy wasnt any more advanced than feudalism"

Do you even know when feudalism was a common thing? That's the same time they were around, ergo, that's the time they should have been in.

Charlemagne was a Norman. Which is offspring of the Vikings in France. Everyone in France was a Norman.

Iceland is a heavily volcanic area, making it important for scientific observations.

And to your point about the Greeks;
Cool. We weren't even talking about the Greeks. Your arguments are shit, and it's becoming pretty clear you never got past the seventh grade in history class.
#296 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
So everyone from normandy must be a decendant of the norse eh? Just like everyone in america is a decendant from the native americans, r-right?

There are plenty of Volcanos around the world and its not like the geological studies started in iceland.

We were talking about how Romo/Greek civilization was better than the scandinavian one. The content is about a work of art beeing desecrated by a savage, even tho the romans did that in egypt too...
#299 - comradewinter (09/09/2014) [-]
Your argument is that Africans were more advanced than Norse people, which is bullshit. Of course Greece and Rome was more advanced. They were the most advanced at the time, and probably the most advanced civilizations ever compared to their time.
#300 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
Look at aincient egypt and northern africa.
#307 - comradewinter (09/09/2014) [-]
You mean the regions founded by Middle Easterners?

Egypt was founded by nomads hailing from somewhere in the Middle East, possibly the Syrian region. Hence why their Pharaohs and nobles had Eastern origins. It was later built upon by Alexander the Great, after it showed a decline. A Macedonian.

Northern Africa is a bit of a big area to cover, but you're probably referring to Carthage and Numidia.

Carthage was founded by Poenicians, who came from the Middle East as well, assumingly from the Israeli region we know it as today. However, despite their impressive architecture, were savages. During the first Punic war they sacrificed their own children to their Gods for good fortune, and were fond of massacring their opponents.

The Numidians were tribal, being Massylii and Masaesyli respectively. They were mostly savage, and had little architecture to speak of. The little they had was built primarily by the Punic Carthagenians. After Carthage fell, the responsibility fell upon the Romans, who continued the work.

All in all, none of these were built by African natives. It would be like crediting the US to the Native Americans. They got slaughtered and replaced.
#310 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
What about Ethiopia or Mali?
#318 - comradewinter (09/09/2014) [-]
Ethiopia was built by native Ethiopians with massive assistance from the Sabeans, who were Middle Easterners. The subsequent development was orchestrated by Christians and Muslims, hailing from Europe and the Middle East respectively.

The Mali Empire was founded by Muslims from the Middle East, building upon the Ghana Empire which was also assisted by Muslims.

There wasn't really anything impressive about either of these, neither. The Great Mosque of Djenné in Mali looks nice, but the architect had Middle Eastern origins and it was economically supported by Middle Eastern benefactors.

And don't even mention the Zulu Empire. The region was large due to fighting with other weaker tribes, but was put down when they couldn't fight British Machineguns with spears and shields.
#323 - dehumanizer (09/10/2014) [-]
Still more advanced than the vikings. Atleast they had made something even with help. Vikings didnt do that till the late renisanse.
#327 - comradewinter (09/10/2014) [-]
We had the most advanced ships, blades that everyone envied, heavy armor, and a thrist for conquest. I don't suppose you know who laid the foundations for just about most of Europe? Africans stayed in Africa, and got pushed back whenever they dealt with anyone not from the region.
#325 - cherubium (09/10/2014) [-]
Didn't do what? build kingdoms?
#321 - cherubium (09/09/2014) [-]
Dehumanizer has a severe case of taking offense about the fact that his anceastors got buttfucked hard by Vikings so he has dedicated his life to spouting "Vikings were just barbarians!!!!!11!!" and all around is just /pol/ presonified which is pretty hilarious in itself.
#322 - dehumanizer (09/10/2014) [-]
Not really no.
User avatar #297 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/09/2014) [-]
People from Normandy weren't always Normans. Charlemagne was.

Iceland is still important for geological studies.

You specifically were talking about how Scandinavians "weren't" as advanced as Africa. This debate between you and I never had anything to do with Greco Roman civilization. In fact, in my first comment, I even said that Hellenistic cultures were more advanced than Scandinavians, in my opinion.
#302 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
Say what?

"The Vikings started to raid the Seine Valley during the middle of 9th century. After attacking and destroying monasteries, including one at Jumièges, they took advantage of the power vacuum created by the disintegration of Charlemagne's empire to take northern France. The fiefdom of Normandy was created for the Norwegian/Danish Viking leader Hrolf Ragnvaldsson, or Rollo (also known as Robert of Normandy). Rollo had besieged Paris but in 911 entered vassalage to the king of the West Franks, Charles the Simple, through the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte. In exchange for his homage and fealty, Rollo legally gained the territory which he and his Viking allies had previously conquered. The name "Normandy" reflects Rollo's Viking (i.e. "Northman") origins." From wikipedia, the normandy article.

Someone else would have discovered it by the time people started studying volcanos.

You are right north africans did alot of raping and pilaging too.
#18 - Just because they weren't as cultured as the Romans doesn't me…  [+] (36 new replies) 09/09/2014 on A message across the millenia. +2
#66 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
Actualy up untill the late Renisance, africans WERE more civilized than scandinavians.
User avatar #68 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/09/2014) [-]
That's.. That's not what I was saying at all. Not to mention, that's really not true at all, either.
#72 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
VIDF pls, while the proto sweedes were busy killing villagers and then runing away from every conventional army, the africans in ethiopia managed to build pic related. Carved it right out of solid stone.
User avatar #116 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/09/2014) [-]
Alright, you clearly don't understand a single thing about history other than someone's ability to chisel stone.
#127 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
And how are they better than Samoans or aboriginals? What did they contribute to mankind? Nothing, they were simple brutes just existing and going to war from time to time.
User avatar #286 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/09/2014) [-]
Well, they contributed the entire population of Europe, for one, and they made France, and won the battle of Hastings. They also made advancements in what is basic hygiene to us now, such as the comb, which didn't exist anywhere else. They also created the first practical version of the magnetic compass. The Chinese created the first one, I believe, but it wasn't exactly useful. Vikings also created Greenland, Iceland, and found North America.

The Vikings also had a hierarchical culture that was quite in depth and advanced. African cultures of the time decided wealth by how many yams you had, and how many people you had killed. Your goal in life would have been to be physically stronger than everyone else. Aboriginal cultures existed solely through oral tradition with no writing, and technologically, hardly passed the stone age for tens of thousands of years.
#289 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
France was made by Charlemange (even tho he called it roman empire for the lulz), combs were discovered back in neolitic era.

Greenland and Iceland are of no historical revelancy to the world and the North American settlement was a disaster and the continent might have been discovered earlier by an Irish monk.

Their herierchy wasnt any more advanced than feudalism. While greeks had democracy even B.C.


User avatar #291 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/09/2014) [-]
"Their herierchy wasnt any more advanced than feudalism"

Do you even know when feudalism was a common thing? That's the same time they were around, ergo, that's the time they should have been in.

Charlemagne was a Norman. Which is offspring of the Vikings in France. Everyone in France was a Norman.

Iceland is a heavily volcanic area, making it important for scientific observations.

And to your point about the Greeks;
Cool. We weren't even talking about the Greeks. Your arguments are shit, and it's becoming pretty clear you never got past the seventh grade in history class.
#296 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
So everyone from normandy must be a decendant of the norse eh? Just like everyone in america is a decendant from the native americans, r-right?

There are plenty of Volcanos around the world and its not like the geological studies started in iceland.

We were talking about how Romo/Greek civilization was better than the scandinavian one. The content is about a work of art beeing desecrated by a savage, even tho the romans did that in egypt too...
#299 - comradewinter (09/09/2014) [-]
Your argument is that Africans were more advanced than Norse people, which is bullshit. Of course Greece and Rome was more advanced. They were the most advanced at the time, and probably the most advanced civilizations ever compared to their time.
#300 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
Look at aincient egypt and northern africa.
#307 - comradewinter (09/09/2014) [-]
You mean the regions founded by Middle Easterners?

Egypt was founded by nomads hailing from somewhere in the Middle East, possibly the Syrian region. Hence why their Pharaohs and nobles had Eastern origins. It was later built upon by Alexander the Great, after it showed a decline. A Macedonian.

Northern Africa is a bit of a big area to cover, but you're probably referring to Carthage and Numidia.

Carthage was founded by Poenicians, who came from the Middle East as well, assumingly from the Israeli region we know it as today. However, despite their impressive architecture, were savages. During the first Punic war they sacrificed their own children to their Gods for good fortune, and were fond of massacring their opponents.

The Numidians were tribal, being Massylii and Masaesyli respectively. They were mostly savage, and had little architecture to speak of. The little they had was built primarily by the Punic Carthagenians. After Carthage fell, the responsibility fell upon the Romans, who continued the work.

All in all, none of these were built by African natives. It would be like crediting the US to the Native Americans. They got slaughtered and replaced.
#310 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
What about Ethiopia or Mali?
#318 - comradewinter (09/09/2014) [-]
Ethiopia was built by native Ethiopians with massive assistance from the Sabeans, who were Middle Easterners. The subsequent development was orchestrated by Christians and Muslims, hailing from Europe and the Middle East respectively.

The Mali Empire was founded by Muslims from the Middle East, building upon the Ghana Empire which was also assisted by Muslims.

There wasn't really anything impressive about either of these, neither. The Great Mosque of Djenné in Mali looks nice, but the architect had Middle Eastern origins and it was economically supported by Middle Eastern benefactors.

And don't even mention the Zulu Empire. The region was large due to fighting with other weaker tribes, but was put down when they couldn't fight British Machineguns with spears and shields.
#323 - dehumanizer (09/10/2014) [-]
Still more advanced than the vikings. Atleast they had made something even with help. Vikings didnt do that till the late renisanse.
#327 - comradewinter (09/10/2014) [-]
We had the most advanced ships, blades that everyone envied, heavy armor, and a thrist for conquest. I don't suppose you know who laid the foundations for just about most of Europe? Africans stayed in Africa, and got pushed back whenever they dealt with anyone not from the region.
#325 - cherubium (09/10/2014) [-]
Didn't do what? build kingdoms?
#321 - cherubium (09/09/2014) [-]
Dehumanizer has a severe case of taking offense about the fact that his anceastors got buttfucked hard by Vikings so he has dedicated his life to spouting "Vikings were just barbarians!!!!!11!!" and all around is just /pol/ presonified which is pretty hilarious in itself.
#322 - dehumanizer (09/10/2014) [-]
Not really no.
User avatar #297 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/09/2014) [-]
People from Normandy weren't always Normans. Charlemagne was.

Iceland is still important for geological studies.

You specifically were talking about how Scandinavians "weren't" as advanced as Africa. This debate between you and I never had anything to do with Greco Roman civilization. In fact, in my first comment, I even said that Hellenistic cultures were more advanced than Scandinavians, in my opinion.
#302 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
Say what?

"The Vikings started to raid the Seine Valley during the middle of 9th century. After attacking and destroying monasteries, including one at Jumièges, they took advantage of the power vacuum created by the disintegration of Charlemagne's empire to take northern France. The fiefdom of Normandy was created for the Norwegian/Danish Viking leader Hrolf Ragnvaldsson, or Rollo (also known as Robert of Normandy). Rollo had besieged Paris but in 911 entered vassalage to the king of the West Franks, Charles the Simple, through the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte. In exchange for his homage and fealty, Rollo legally gained the territory which he and his Viking allies had previously conquered. The name "Normandy" reflects Rollo's Viking (i.e. "Northman") origins." From wikipedia, the normandy article.

Someone else would have discovered it by the time people started studying volcanos.

You are right north africans did alot of raping and pilaging too.
#20 - andrakian (09/09/2014) [-]
Actually the vikings were, socially and even technologically in some sectors, miles ahead of Dark Ages Europe and the Roman Empire in its decadence phase.

They had elective monarchies, the best weapons and boats in Europe and a code of laws that, while not copied as many times as the roman one, was much more advanced.

But yeah, they didn't have marble temples so they were cavemen. Why even creating a civilization if you can't get yourself some marble, amirite?
#67 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
Varg pls dont you some farmers to kill?
The Vikings werent any supperiour to any other group of savages, like the Zulu for example.
User avatar #58 - rockamekishiko (09/09/2014) [-]
while they were not as barbaric as people perceive, i don't think that they were more advanced than the romans at the time
#201 - andrakian (09/09/2014) [-]
Definitely not more advanced than the romans under Augustus or other great emperors. But they were more advanced than the 4th and 5th century romans.

On citizenship, for instance. Late romans only extended citizenship to free men. Women, slaves and the growing serf population had not much more rights than a horse, and that passed on to Dark Ages Europe.
Viking laws extended citizenship to everyone under the power of the kings, so they were one of the only civilization in Europe to give women and slaves some garanteed rights, like "not being beaten on a daily basis". Their law also garanteed the citizen some fundamental rights that not even the king could take, an untinkable thing to the late romans. Actually, one of the reasons they were seen as barbaric was exactly the smaller power of their nobility over the population, that the rest of Europe saw as anarchy.

I'm a huge history buff, so this kind of thing sends me into a rant
User avatar #298 - mrtwilightsparkle (09/09/2014) [-]
Another little fun-fact; People consider barbarians to be uncultured brutes, when, in its intended use, "Barbarian" simply refers to anyone not Roman.
#29 - atomschlumpf (09/09/2014) [-]
They also bathed about once every week and combed their hair and beards and shit and thus were much more hygenic and much less flea-ridden than many of the other cultures back then
#69 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
Romans had warm water baths.
User avatar #113 - atomschlumpf (09/09/2014) [-]
Thats not the viking era tho
#124 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
Yeah they had it several hundreds of years prior.
User avatar #170 - atomschlumpf (09/09/2014) [-]
And the Egyptians had written language, advanced knowledge in math, knew how to make paper etc. prior to them. Does that make any of the Roman accomplishments any less impressive?

Point is the vikings had a hygienic standard while about everyone else was caked with dirt
#206 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
everyone else was caked in dirt? sorry but thats a myth
User avatar #229 - atomschlumpf (09/09/2014) [-]
How so? The upper classes bathed a few times a year, using parfume instead to smell good and the lower classes bathed next to never. Of course, the higher classes also used powder on their bodies but I doubt that helped much. The streets in the cities were filled with dirt, shit, urine and other horribly stinking stuff.

Admittedly, I'm talking only about Europe here, but that's where the Norsemen were from.
#239 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
Again only pop culture myth. How were the norse any cleaner than the other europeans?

You said something about combs but they predate to the neopolic era and it was just anecdotal evidence.
User avatar #248 - atomschlumpf (09/09/2014) [-]
Uhh..no? It's not a pop culture myth. It is known that up until the 18th century water was thought to be harmful the ones health and as thus the monarchs and aristocrats bathed as rarely as possible. Take for example King Ludwig XVI. That was even after the Dark Ages and he was widely known for stinking like an animal.

And yes, they combed and washed their hair and beards. Of course, the aristocrats of medieval europe did the same but I doubt the common people did. Also the nordic countries were some of the first to use saunas again after seeing it in russia and asian countries
#268 - dehumanizer (09/09/2014) [-]
Yeah 1 smelly king means the whole of the continent was smelly too amirigt?

Why do you doubt the common people did?

Also romans invented warm water baths.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2500

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #5 - majormayor (06/13/2014) [-]
I wonder what comment #1 was.
User avatar #4 - majormayor (04/27/2014) [-]
It's been a while since the last time I saw you.
User avatar #3 - mayormilkman (01/07/2014) [-]
Are you a pretty princess?
User avatar #2 - mayormilkman (09/02/2013) [-]
butts
 Friends (0)