I don't think it's a good idea to discourage curious people from asking questions. If people want to know the truth about whether Vikings had horned helmets, they should ask someone who's knowledgeable in the field. Otherwise they'll just carry on believing something false.
The question about who from our days will be talked about 500 years from now is an interesting food for thought. The boring answer is that it's impossible to answer. Since history is a series of events, we can't know now which butterfly's wing flap that sets off a ripple that changes the course. Someone who may be overlooked today may actually be viewed by future historians as the one that started the next big leap in some field or another. My hope is that future historians appreciate the genius minds that created the Internet, making it possible for this particular interaction that is taking place right here. I feel that those people are greatly under-appreciated in present days, where we instead glorify the ones that got rich off of it.
Entertaining video. If I may offer an observation: there is a background track to this - sounds like something by the likes of Midnight Syndicate, it's every so slightly intrusive. It's not massive but it is there.
@@theacidcackle9986 he quickly realized it was a whole other continent. Why he went back to spain with this news which opened up the new continent to the western world. The reason why he is credited for "discovering" it
I'd choose the past over the future too, but with a different motivation, which I borrow from comedian Louis CK. He said that time travel is an exclusively white privilege. We can go anywhere in the past and when we get there: "Welcome, sir, we have a table for you right over here". Black people can't fuck around with time travel. Anytime before 1980 is a hard no. But, he also said that he did not want to go into the future and find out what happens to us for being assholes all through history.
I had always read that the Viking horned helmets were based on the then-misconception that the horns found at burial sites belonged on the helmets but were in fact drinking horns. But as far as being "impractical", we know that some Japanese Helmets were fixed with decorative horns as were at least some European examples such as the Waterloo and Veksø Helmets. Not truly horns, it suggests that horned Viking helmets as an idea were not completely out of bounds. As far as the "Dark Ages" go, it's true that there were not as "dark" as we might have been told by Hollywood, the term itself comes from a specific source: Petrarch. Yes, the Anglo-Saxons made incredible Jewelry, there were some incredible cathedrals built, and organizations like the Hanseatic League were extensive, organized trade networks. But what Petrarch observed was a Europe that was covered in Roman and Greek ruins. The remains of great aqueducts, ports, lighthouses, sewers, large public baths, highways, forums, triumphal arches, statues, frescoes, fragments of elegant glassware and more. Much of which was inferred to have been of a greater quality and certainly greater in scope than anything Petrarch had seen among his contemporaries. After all, he knew his own time better than we do, so perhaps it's not so bad to take him at his word. Again, it's true that the medieval castles built in Petrarch's time, and even centuries before and after were often extremely impressive structures. But he would have also known that for a time, Romans were building large cities and villas that were virtually undefended, as the land from Northern England to Jordan to Egypt to Portugal was, more or less, a unified and safe country, not the fragmented checkerboard of the frequently warring Kingdoms and Principalities. In other words, Petrarch probably noticed that his contemporaries would use structures like the Coliseum as a quarry for materials, rather than building from scratch as the Romans usually did. He might have even noticed that when the Romans took things from other lands, such as columns from Greece or Obelisks from Egypt, it was with a level of finance, engineering, and organizational execution that was almost impossible in his day. "Dark"? Perhaps not, and perhaps Petrarch was being overly romantic/nostalgic for the Romans and Greeks. But can you really blame him? And let's not forget that medievalists (and pretty much anyone who likes Wheel of Time/Game of Thrones/Lord of the Rings/Dungeons and Dragons) often see the medieval period through rose colored glasses. After all, castles might seem romantic and beautiful to us (and they are), but they also existed because Lords very often wanted to kill (or at least ransom) each other and take their land. The Romans shed plenty of blood, but they had a lot to show for it. More, it seemed to Petrarch, than those in his time could produce. And lastly, "Columbus was a jerk"...yeah? And who wasn't? The Aztecs during that time were cleaving out the hearts of people because they thought the blood would feed the gods enough to make the sun rise. And by Columbus' 3rd journey, he did believe he had found some place new, while searching for a passage for Asia. It's true he never set foot on *North* America, but that was never the claim. The claim was that he discovered "America" at large, which he did. Technically the Vikings did it 500 years earlier, but they didn't do anything significant or lasting with the discovery. Columbus, for all his faults (some real, some fashionably exaggerated or misunderstood) permanently closed the loop between the old and new worlds.
I reckon the native Americans discovered the Americas about 12,000 BC. Also isolated horrific acts in a culture don't mean their destruction and the murder of millions of their civilians is justified.
I would have like dot have seen one of the Roman massed battles from a nice vantage point; 40, 50,60 thousand men, in formations, against similar numbers Or the MASSED formations of the Napoleonic era. ... my brain can't even picture it.
Something that was always interest me, you’re standing on a ships mast with a safety harness, sailors in the past weren’t that stupid did they attached themselves to the mast. I know the saying wooden ships metal men, and metal ships wooden men , again thank you very interesting
Yes horned helmets on vikings is largely a misconception, but in my opinion not entirely. The ancestors of the vikings and many other cultures in antiquity used horned helmets including the celts. Its highly likely the odd viking wore one. The practicality angle is a moot point. If they existed across the world before the Viking age why does it suddenly become impractical? The fact is we can't know. So its far healthier for educational videos to suggest "our best evidence suggests" or "I believe" and be less matter of fact. That's precisely how we end up with further misconceptions that last generations if you ask me. Too many folk told right from wrong as a matter of fact and clinging to it
There are also plenty of ceremonial viking helmets with horns. They were probably never used in battle, at least we have no evidence of this but on the other hand we cant say for sure. What we do know is that the typical viking helmet did not have horns.
@@kingspeechless1607 correct, you might also want to show leadership by wearing suboptimal armour. Greek Pyrrhus running around in the middle of a battlefield with a huge sign saying here I am. So as I said, it’s possible they used them in some cases, they certainly used them for ceremonial reasons. What we can say is that it wasn’t the go to helmet for the average Viking.
@@kingspeechless1607 remember that people have done many seemingly dumb things in battle. Gallic tripes fighting naked, or take the vikings and the concept of the berserker who was at times described as only wearing animal hides and throwing the shield away. Probably not true but I think it’s quite easy to make the case that horned helmets could have been used, but we have no evidence they were. And as I said, that proves it wasn’t common
@@Pawsk I think if a Viking did go fighting in one of them it might awe unarmed or poorly-armed villagers but enemy fighters would probably think something like "Look at that tw*t, let's get him"
I suspect that some Viking helmets had horns. In ancient and medieval times, commanders usually wore outfits that caused them to stand out. It was practical, because troops could be reassured knowing that their commander was with them. I also made it easier to find and communicate with the commander during the chaos of a battle. A horned helmet would have been just the type of thing to be worn by a Viking commander during battle.
this guy by his own admittance has been trawling the vintage porn websites. From my understanding the Greeks did believe the earth was flat, I believe in Greeks times someone postulated the earth may be a globe but no one took it seriously until Copernicus came along many many years later,
I would be quiet interested in seeing proof that educated Greek believed the Earth was flat after, say, 200 BC. My understanding- and I will note that this is the understanding of an undergraduate, though my father is a professor of astronomy- is that the roundness of the Earth was pretty well settled by the experiments of Eristothenes of Alexandria and by the work of Aristotle. In brief: Aristotle recorded that the shadow of the Earth on the moon is spherical; Eristothenes noticed that shadow cast by the sun differs from place to place in a way suggesting that the Earth follows a curve. I regret my inability to provided a relevant primary source link; this information is from, partially, course notes.
This is one myth in a long line of grammar myths that needs to die. It can be either "a historian" or "an historian" and it is purely a style choice. The reason "an" used to be preferred was because the "h" in historian was not pronounced, making it a smoother phrasing. This is no longer the case, and for a long time now grammar and style guides have acknowledged both as perfectly acceptable. Here are some other facts which contradict common grammar nazi myths, to think about before you "correct" someone next: Nauseous DOES indeed mean both "feeling nausea" and "creating nausea in those around you." It is perfectly correct to say "I feel nauseous." You CAN split infinitives. Feel free to. In fact, many sentences read much better with a split infinitive than otherwise. Syllabuses AND syllabi are both correct I could go on but my vein is gonna pop, cheers
@@seanmoran6510 Haven't seen that, maybe I'll give it a miss. But I like Dan, I really liked his Battlefield Britain series he did with his dad, (dating myself) and also Battle Castle. The other bloke didn't offer any insights - go back to see Jimmy Hendrix, really, is that all? As much as I like "Hey Joe". Too much personal stuff, and I know people who could have packed that interview with lots of good rich historical nuggets. Sure learnt how he has all the right fashionable opinions though. Apparently he also identifies as a "comedian". Yawn.
What question should you NEVER ask a historian? 🤔
Why did the Roman Empire fall?
@@lvsarmy2012 it didn't. It just changed its brand and became the Vatican city.
Why would you use that as a source if you were trying to find the truth?
I don't think it's a good idea to discourage curious people from asking questions. If people want to know the truth about whether Vikings had horned helmets, they should ask someone who's knowledgeable in the field. Otherwise they'll just carry on believing something false.
What did Marie Antoinette mean when she said "You can't have your cake and eat it?"
This was awesome. This is the first time seeing Greg, I’m usually listening to him on the podcast. This content is brilliant.
The question about who from our days will be talked about 500 years from now is an interesting food for thought. The boring answer is that it's impossible to answer. Since history is a series of events, we can't know now which butterfly's wing flap that sets off a ripple that changes the course. Someone who may be overlooked today may actually be viewed by future historians as the one that started the next big leap in some field or another.
My hope is that future historians appreciate the genius minds that created the Internet, making it possible for this particular interaction that is taking place right here. I feel that those people are greatly under-appreciated in present days, where we instead glorify the ones that got rich off of it.
“Plague, less fun…” Loved this! More, please!!!
Thanks so much!
In days of old
When knights were bold
And privies yet invented
They left their loads
Beside the roads
And walked away contented
Really enjoyed this thanks.
Entertaining video. If I may offer an observation: there is a background track to this - sounds like something by the likes of Midnight Syndicate, it's every so slightly intrusive.
It's not massive but it is there.
More of these videos, this was interesting
great stuff
Loved this.
3 seconds in and I'm googling 'Victorian pornography'
This is brilliant
Right before he said he would go back to see Jimi Hendrix play, I thought the same exact thing. Lol
Fly on the wall for a historical event: Lee surrendering to Grant
I always thought I would like to go back to spring 1066 and be a fly on the wall to follow the build up to the events of October
Love this
One of the best books 📚
😎👌🏻
The Antikythera mechanism, the navigation astronomy clock made by the greeks
Either that or the Byzantine Greek Fire
500 years from now, Paul McCartney, Shakespeare, their narrative will persist.
Fly on the wall: learn to make Damascus Steel
Columbus didnt think he was in india. The island he hit was where japan was on the map he was using.
...leading him to believe that's where he was...so he thought he was indeed near too india....then think he was in India upon further movement
Greg said that
@@theacidcackle9986 he quickly realized it was a whole other continent. Why he went back to spain with this news which opened up the new continent to the western world. The reason why he is credited for "discovering" it
Caitlyn must be really proud.
I'd choose the past over the future too, but with a different motivation, which I borrow from comedian Louis CK.
He said that time travel is an exclusively white privilege. We can go anywhere in the past and when we get there: "Welcome, sir, we have a table for you right over here". Black people can't fuck around with time travel. Anytime before 1980 is a hard no. But, he also said that he did not want to go into the future and find out what happens to us for being assholes all through history.
Surely Temujin would be the best at speed dating, he had a number of official wives, never mind the rest!
It's pronounced Jingis Khan. Like "Gin" (the drink)
I had always read that the Viking horned helmets were based on the then-misconception that the horns found at burial sites belonged on the helmets but were in fact drinking horns.
But as far as being "impractical", we know that some Japanese Helmets were fixed with decorative horns as were at least some European examples such as the Waterloo and Veksø Helmets. Not truly horns, it suggests that horned Viking helmets as an idea were not completely out of bounds.
As far as the "Dark Ages" go, it's true that there were not as "dark" as we might have been told by Hollywood, the term itself comes from a specific source: Petrarch. Yes, the Anglo-Saxons made incredible Jewelry, there were some incredible cathedrals built, and organizations like the Hanseatic League were extensive, organized trade networks. But what Petrarch observed was a Europe that was covered in Roman and Greek ruins. The remains of great aqueducts, ports, lighthouses, sewers, large public baths, highways, forums, triumphal arches, statues, frescoes, fragments of elegant glassware and more. Much of which was inferred to have been of a greater quality and certainly greater in scope than anything Petrarch had seen among his contemporaries. After all, he knew his own time better than we do, so perhaps it's not so bad to take him at his word. Again, it's true that the medieval castles built in Petrarch's time, and even centuries before and after were often extremely impressive structures. But he would have also known that for a time, Romans were building large cities and villas that were virtually undefended, as the land from Northern England to Jordan to Egypt to Portugal was, more or less, a unified and safe country, not the fragmented checkerboard of the frequently warring Kingdoms and Principalities. In other words, Petrarch probably noticed that his contemporaries would use structures like the Coliseum as a quarry for materials, rather than building from scratch as the Romans usually did. He might have even noticed that when the Romans took things from other lands, such as columns from Greece or Obelisks from Egypt, it was with a level of finance, engineering, and organizational execution that was almost impossible in his day.
"Dark"? Perhaps not, and perhaps Petrarch was being overly romantic/nostalgic for the Romans and Greeks. But can you really blame him? And let's not forget that medievalists (and pretty much anyone who likes Wheel of Time/Game of Thrones/Lord of the Rings/Dungeons and Dragons) often see the medieval period through rose colored glasses. After all, castles might seem romantic and beautiful to us (and they are), but they also existed because Lords very often wanted to kill (or at least ransom) each other and take their land. The Romans shed plenty of blood, but they had a lot to show for it. More, it seemed to Petrarch, than those in his time could produce.
And lastly, "Columbus was a jerk"...yeah? And who wasn't? The Aztecs during that time were cleaving out the hearts of people because they thought the blood would feed the gods enough to make the sun rise. And by Columbus' 3rd journey, he did believe he had found some place new, while searching for a passage for Asia. It's true he never set foot on *North* America, but that was never the claim. The claim was that he discovered "America" at large, which he did. Technically the Vikings did it 500 years earlier, but they didn't do anything significant or lasting with the discovery. Columbus, for all his faults (some real, some fashionably exaggerated or misunderstood) permanently closed the loop between the old and new worlds.
I reckon the native Americans discovered the Americas about 12,000 BC. Also isolated horrific acts in a culture don't mean their destruction and the murder of millions of their civilians is justified.
The found Vikings buried with drinking horns. Wagner's operas popularised the horned helmet myths.
1968 was great!
Shame about the sound! Otherwise very enjoyable.
The guy answering..his audio is too low.
Is this one of those videos that takes 11 minutes to say "probably not"?
Very interesting
Thanks!
I would have thought Hitler will be remembered and talked about in 500 years
What a great video and interesting 👍👍
I would have like dot have seen one of the Roman massed battles from a nice vantage point; 40, 50,60 thousand men, in formations, against similar numbers
Or the MASSED formations of the Napoleonic era.
... my brain can't even picture it.
Hard to imagine!
Something that was always interest me, you’re standing on a ships mast with a safety harness, sailors in the past weren’t that stupid did they attached themselves to the mast. I know the saying wooden ships metal men, and metal ships wooden men , again thank you very interesting
Yes horned helmets on vikings is largely a misconception, but in my opinion not entirely. The ancestors of the vikings and many other cultures in antiquity used horned helmets including the celts. Its highly likely the odd viking wore one. The practicality angle is a moot point. If they existed across the world before the Viking age why does it suddenly become impractical? The fact is we can't know. So its far healthier for educational videos to suggest "our best evidence suggests" or "I believe" and be less matter of fact. That's precisely how we end up with further misconceptions that last generations if you ask me. Too many folk told right from wrong as a matter of fact and clinging to it
There are also plenty of ceremonial viking helmets with horns. They were probably never used in battle, at least we have no evidence of this but on the other hand we cant say for sure. What we do know is that the typical viking helmet did not have horns.
@@Pawsk You need a helmet to deflect blows not 'catch' them
@@kingspeechless1607 correct, you might also want to show leadership by wearing suboptimal armour. Greek Pyrrhus running around in the middle of a battlefield with a huge sign saying here I am.
So as I said, it’s possible they used them in some cases, they certainly used them for ceremonial reasons. What we can say is that it wasn’t the go to helmet for the average Viking.
@@kingspeechless1607 remember that people have done many seemingly dumb things in battle. Gallic tripes fighting naked, or take the vikings and the concept of the berserker who was at times described as only wearing animal hides and throwing the shield away.
Probably not true but I think it’s quite easy to make the case that horned helmets could have been used, but we have no evidence they were.
And as I said, that proves it wasn’t common
@@Pawsk I think if a Viking did go fighting in one of them it might awe unarmed or poorly-armed villagers but enemy fighters would probably think something like "Look at that tw*t, let's get him"
Quiet an intersting guy
If I had a time machine I would go back and tell myself to stop dating and focus on my career.
Why did my ex girlfriend say to me, "Once a King always a King, but once a Knight is enough?" :I
I suspect that some Viking helmets had horns. In ancient and medieval times, commanders usually wore outfits that caused them to stand out. It was practical, because troops could be reassured knowing that their commander was with them. I also made it easier to find and communicate with the commander during the chaos of a battle. A horned helmet would have been just the type of thing to be worn by a Viking commander during battle.
How did knights go to the toilet?
They rode on their horses.
Sort out the audio snd this would’ve been great.
During the day
this guy by his own admittance has been trawling the vintage porn websites. From my understanding the Greeks did believe the earth was flat, I believe in Greeks times someone postulated the earth may be a globe but no one took it seriously until Copernicus came along many many years later,
I would be quiet interested in seeing proof that educated Greek believed the Earth was flat after, say, 200 BC. My understanding- and I will note that this is the understanding of an undergraduate, though my father is a professor of astronomy- is that the roundness of the Earth was pretty well settled by the experiments of Eristothenes of Alexandria and by the work of Aristotle. In brief: Aristotle recorded that the shadow of the Earth on the moon is spherical; Eristothenes noticed that shadow cast by the sun differs from place to place in a way suggesting that the Earth follows a curve. I regret my inability to provided a relevant primary source link; this information is from, partially, course notes.
In 500 years this era (1990-2030) will be known as the 'Age of Lies'.
Somebody shoulda told Wagner !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Interesting and entertaining, but it sounds like the man in the gray shirt isn’t mic’d
You mean, ‘The man, the legend, Dan Snow’. Who in fairness appears to own a lot of nice M&S grey tops.
This is not what I've been watching on HH. This, to me, was boring.
Guilt, rage and ego.... Intadesting.
Definitely Elon Musk will surly go down in history as on of the greats
Lovely, but gents it should be "Ask an Historian"!
This is one myth in a long line of grammar myths that needs to die. It can be either "a historian" or "an historian" and it is purely a style choice.
The reason "an" used to be preferred was because the "h" in historian was not pronounced, making it a smoother phrasing. This is no longer the case, and for a long time now grammar and style guides have acknowledged both as perfectly acceptable.
Here are some other facts which contradict common grammar nazi myths, to think about before you "correct" someone next:
Nauseous DOES indeed mean both "feeling nausea" and "creating nausea in those around you." It is perfectly correct to say "I feel nauseous."
You CAN split infinitives. Feel free to. In fact, many sentences read much better with a split infinitive than otherwise.
Syllabuses AND syllabi are both correct
I could go on but my vein is gonna pop, cheers
Terrible sound on this video..
Maybe take another look at it.
Unbalanced voices in terms of volume, which makes the conversation difficult to follow
TOFF ALERT
That guys a total snowflake
Why
Did he trigger you?
This bloke didn't impress.
@@seanmoran6510 Haven't seen that, maybe I'll give it a miss. But I like Dan, I really liked his Battlefield Britain series he did with his dad, (dating myself) and also Battle Castle. The other bloke didn't offer any insights - go back to see Jimmy Hendrix, really, is that all? As much as I like "Hey Joe". Too much personal stuff, and I know people who could have packed that interview with lots of good rich historical nuggets. Sure learnt how he has all the right fashionable opinions though. Apparently he also identifies as a "comedian". Yawn.