It took me a while to see it, but ultimately I came to understand the evidence of the truth. The world has only one danger: psychopaths. Reflecting on how lopsided I used to understand the dangers of psychopaths to society, I thought it might be helpful for the readers to do a simple exercise through which perhaps we hope to give you some idea of \u200b\u200bhow many psychopaths exist - ... and how many there are. can only be in your life! Later, you might think about the harm they might have done to you and others they know. Then apply this understanding to current (and historical) events on the world stage, expanding on your discoveries to consider the various public figures, ideologies and social movements of the world.
For this exercise, I use Facebook for example. You can also easily use other web sites or even a rolodex (organizer).
Okay, ready? Go...
The current prevalence of psychopathy is conservatively estimated at 4% of the population. Some experts claim that this number is higher, up to 6%, another commonly accepted number. Another expert believes that psychopathy can be found in 1/3 of men and 1/10 of women. The last time Kevin Dutton announced a huge figure of 10%. But for the sake of this exercise, we'll just take 4% percent, which means 1 person in 25.
What I would like you to do is take the number of people you have on your Facebook “friends” and divide that number by 25. Statistically speaking, the resulting number is the number of psychopaths among your “friends” group. Let's give an example. Let's say you have 150 "friends" on Facebook. This number divided by 25 gives you 6 psychopaths among your “friends”. This may sound ridiculous or outrageous to you, but statistically speaking, there is a very high chance of truth.
Naturally, the first thing required to recognize psychopaths is some kind of reliable yardstick to identify them. The standard and officially recognized tool is Dr.Robert Hare's PCL-R (Psychopathy Checklist), but a good rule of thumb comes from Dr.Martha Stout, who has found that psychopaths consistently harm those who love them while at the same time constantly trying to induce pity on yourself. Psychopaths are essentially people without conscience or empathy, and (this is important!) Without any ability to develop conscience or empathy. This is a rather striking difference between us and them. Unfortunately, we are unable to recognize this quality of them, because psychopaths understand that it is the absence of something that is so fundamental to normal human relationships that this absence sets them apart from the crowd, thus psychopaths learn that they must wear a mask. to avoid detection by the people and societies they hunt.
Bear in mind, however, that there is some variation (at least on the surface) in the degree to which psychopaths meet the criteria (Hare's PCL and Stout's definition). Few will match 100%, because fake "faces" of psychopaths can change in the same way as normal people. Behind the mask of their (often showy) personality, however, psychopaths seem to be driven by the same basic need to dominate others in one way or another.
The psychopaths at the core are kind of like an aggressive narcissist, that is, they are extremely selfish ... transcendental selfishness! They may try to portray themselves as a humble person, but if you pay close attention, you will see their actions show that they are consistently pursuing only their own interests. They also tend to be very charming, at least at the beginning of any relationship you establish with them. They believe they are more important than they really are - (and try to convince others of this), and typically take themselves and their image very seriously. Since they typically fail to live up to their incredible self-descriptions, they lie, and they lie often. They are prone to manipulation, which means that while they may not directly hurt others, they may do things like gossip or try to provoke arguments among others. They do not tend to show strong emotions, which in itself means a little because, the same can be said about a lot of ordinary people, but they can also become excessive just by trying to show others how emotional they are! I think the point is that they often portray an inappropriate degree of emotion - too much, too little, or just the wrong one for the context. Regardless of the emotions shown, however, they tend to be superficial (like crocodile tears) and extreme, and usually want you to finally admit something that you didn't want to admit. Thus, what you are looking for is a person whose emotional manifestations accelerate from 0 to 100 MPH in a very short period, in order to get from the person what they want as a result.
Psychopaths are completely unconcerned about the feelings of others, whom they typically accuse of "overreacting" when they are pointed out to be insensitive. What sets them apart most is that they almost never accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions, nor show any remorse or guilt when they hurt someone. Psychopaths can indeed apologize, and show some degree of superficial remorse, if they develop the right strategy for the situation - they know from past observations that others expect certain reactions from them, what normal people would do in the current situation - or if it help get what they want. While they will definitely try to show that they care about others, they don't actually experience what feels like caring on the inside. The actions will not be motivated by any real remorse and they will do the same thing again.
The next thing to look at is the inconsistencies in the psychopath's overall lifestyle, which can best be described as depraved and irresponsible. They tend to pull from others, taking more than they give. Not only are they unreliable people, they often behave in a brutally irresponsible manner. The problem here, however, is that people tend to forgive psychopaths for gross violations, precisely because they seem so incompetent. Here, we are reminded of the many people who say the US government may not be involved in the 9/11 attacks because it is so "incompetent." Ok, this will always be only half of the story. Can we really look back and admit that Dick Cheney had no idea what he was doing in 9/11 when he gave that order NOT to shoot down a plane heading for the Pentagon?
This can be challenging because psychopaths often lead such seemingly normal and "boring" lives - like doctors, bankers, lawyers, bureaucrats, even psychologists and psychiatrists! What you find when you look closer is that they often need to "rest in the mud," as Hervey Cleckley noted in his important book, The Mask of Sanity. They literally have to take a break from time to time from all the effort they put into maintaining a mask of normalcy for people, and they can do this by completely pulling off drugs, prostitutes and worse. It certainly makes you wonder about all those stories of fundamentalist religious preachers caught using crystal methamphetamine with transvestite prostitutes, not to mention the rise of institutionalized pedophilia, and the high level of demand for snuff films with children that has become almost noticeable. everywhere.
Psychopaths have no long-term goals because they are incapable of thinking in such abstract ways. The "future" is intangible to them. However, it needs to be clarified by saying that they tend to repeatedly assign themselves long-term goals, and then quickly abandon them as well. They tend to be bored, which means they crave excitement, and they also tend to be impulsive. I hear your "There is nothing wrong with that!" The problem is that the things that would turn them on the most involve harming others, in some way. Many of them are in trouble with the law and often create problems at work or in their family, but most of them are smart enough to stay within legal and social agreements. Psychopaths exhibit this kind of behavior from an early age. In fact, many psychopaths are described as adults who simply haven't matured. They are often described as “their own worst enemy,” but they see things the other way around and assume that normal people are sick. Remember, any pity they get from us is part of a trick of allowing them to get what they want by hunting for the gullibility and good nature of normal people.
Then there are those different things that you tend to notice about psychopaths. Their piercing gaze is often mentioned. When someone stares at you in an intense way is not always a sign, but if you've ever been under the gaze of a psychopath, then you know what I mean by "the hairs on the back of your head"! Psychopaths tend to be promiscuous and have many short-term relationships, or if they are in a long-term relationship then they do not remain committed. They tend to violate social norms in many areas. I should also add that what is postulated as "borderline personality disorder" is a feminine expression of the same illness that is associated with some of the most self-destructive behaviors, such as frequent threats of suicide and self-portrayal of male victims when perfectly true. the opposite. The one that turns everything around - like their male counterparts, female psychopaths only seem "self-destructive" - \u200b\u200bthey know very well how to use the pity of others to their advantage through "putting on a show."
Psychopaths like to make you feel sorry for them, that you will gladly come to "save" them, take on their responsibilities, give them money, and support them in any way possible, encouraging their "personal growth." But as soon as a switch flips in your brain and you understand what really happens, as soon as you stop giving them what they want (be it excitement, money, shelter, favors), sex, status (being associated with you) , image enhancement (by being associated with you), patronage, connections, or control over you) then you just AMAZED at how quickly they start to view you as a broken refrigerator! You may be upset when the refrigerator breaks down, but you have no emotional connection with the refrigerator other than that it is an appliance designed to meet your goals. Likewise, your psychopathic friend, partner, etc., treats you.
Fooling you by traumatizing is a kind of ego boost for the psychopath. As you allow them to use you, it nourishes them in more than one way. It makes them feel so special that a good person like you allows them to hurt you, forgives them for it, and then do it again, all for them! Perhaps the question we should be asking ourselves is, maybe psychopaths and not-so-underdeveloped people if they think so, provided that normal people are so willing to allow such self-abuse?
The main thing to remember is that psychopaths often fascinate people who are completely self-focused. They are the type of person you might decide that you “can't trust him at all,” who leave you with a nagging feeling that they just want to use you or others, or who you keep on justifying, desirably considering “if he only knew what he was doing! " If you find yourself repeatedly asking yourself (or that person), “how could you do this”? !! (insert contempt here), then the answer is he did it because he could, he enjoyed it, and he definitely will do it over and over until you are completely free of it.
Much of the public discussion of psychopaths - both in the media and among social groups - revolves around the heinous and atrocious acts committed by psychopaths. Most people are familiar with psychopaths like Ted Bundy or Charles Manson. But the number of psychopathic serial killers pales in comparison to the number of non-criminal psychopaths walking among us. Some examples of possible psychopaths include: Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton (ah, yes, some of them have unusually successful careers). Awareness of the existence of a political psychopath seems to be growing. Then there are psychopaths in the entertainment industry. I really wonder about Charlie Sheen, Tom Cruise and Britney Spears, among countless others, who also seem to fit a psychopathic profile. Michael Jackson was like another confident candidate, like Michael Vick. Fictional psychopaths include many of the "tough men" of modern cinema such as James Bond 007, and the famous fictional libertine Don Juan, another good portrait of a psychopath.
While saying all this, it is very important to keep in mind that it is dangerous (and reckless) to absolutely confidently decide that any of the above people are definitely a psychopath. It's not about identifying someone with certainty. I'm just trying to get you out of this mindset to connect psychopaths with psychopathic serial killers (an association that has become part of popular culture for a reason!) Into an objective reality, where psychopaths can be (and are) charming, seemingly sweet and caring people, long-term whose actions contradict the impression they create. Remember O. Jay Simpson? He seemed pretty adorable in those Naked Pistol movies, didn't he ...
A word of caution: it MAY happen that you are in the right place at the right time to see someone doing something really wicked and you just KNOW that one and the other MUST be a psychopath! Much more often than not, however, especially in this Age of the Internet, where anyone can appear to be something one and in fact be someone completely different, which is required to get somehow closer to assessing whether someone is a psychopath - some a combination of long-term observation and in-depth research of their past. The first thing you need to do is pretty much eliminate everything they say about themselves from your research. Allow and listen to their self-descriptions, but do not bother to attach great importance to them. The real value can be found in comparison with what others say about them. What you are looking for is to see if their behavior matches their words. What pattern appears? Wherever possible, TALK to others to try and find out more. Psychopaths can say the nicest things about people and betray them right away. They can make YOU feel more important, but only because they want something from you. They may seem so miserable and unhappy that your heart will open to them, but for all the help you give them, the result is that you help them become stronger, bigger, better psychopaths.
Coming back to our exercise, when you go through your Facebook friends list, you might think along these lines - “Hmmm, this one and this one fit the profile, and this is what this guy does, and she definitely does! ... but he cannot be, and she is a saint "... stop yourself! If you don’t know someone very well, then it’s very unlikely that you can tell for sure if they are psychopaths based on their posts and family photos on Facebook, but many would like us to believe that social media platforms serve as adequate diagnostic tools. The real point of this exercise is to make you think about the sheer scale of the problem that humanity is facing. The vast majority of people have no idea that psychopaths walk among us, much less - what they really look like, or just how many there may be. Remember, we are talking about 1 in 25 people, statistically speaking, so the fact remains that 1 in 25 people you know are potentially very dangerous people. Please don't panic! There are some mitigating factors. On the one hand, they are much more likely to hang out in certain circles, so the number in your environment may be slightly lower than for others.
I understand that these are bitter ideas to consider, but it really needs to be done. Normal people living in "modern" societies, ruled by psychopaths and influenced by their specific brand of "ethics" find themselves in a "turn the other cheek" position in front of reality, which is simply too difficult to resist. “If you can't say anything good about someone, don't say anything,” and other similar “wisdoms” are designed to keep people from sharing information about problematic individuals, at work, at home, in the neighborhood, or in the wider community. They provide psychopaths and other anxious personalities with an excellent cover to continue manipulating others, and only serve to "poneerize", that is, the gradual subversion of ideas, movements and groups focused on the ruthlessly selfish goals of psychopaths. Whereas governments take it upon themselves to know absolutely everything about you, "because if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear", psychopaths will discourage the open dissemination of observations among ordinary people, condemning their combined efforts as "groupthink" by implying that the source of evil lies lies within the group, and discouraging efforts to analyze and identify the true source of rejection working with such groups and turning their members against each other.
The reality is that "all people" are NOT "created equal." People are born with different abilities, lack of abilities, desires, aspirations, and characters. We like to say that “all people are created equal,” and while I strongly believe that everyone should be given the opportunity to succeed, I also understand that ramps are built for people with physical problems, glasses are made for people (like myself ), who cannot see well, insulin is being produced for diabetics (although most diabetes is caused by a high-carb diet), and on the other side of the scale, many schools have been created to target extremely gifted and intelligent people. But what should we do with people who have such a clear moral violation, lack of conscience? One-off incarceration and therapy have repeatedly proven ineffective in "punishing" or "treating" psychopaths. In fact, there is general agreement - these measures make them much more skilled and cunning manipulators. In short, until now, there is no effective remedy for psychopaths for their deviations. I do not have an answer to the question of what we can or should do with psychopaths in our societies, or in power, but I do know that it is time for us to start asking such questions more often and much louder.
In summary, let me go back to where I was at the beginning of this article. Start thinking about this problem on a large scale. Think of this 4-6% of humanity that is draining our energy, resources and emotions from the rest of us in a very disproportionate way (for example, Dr. Robert Hare suggested that psychopaths are responsible for 50% of all crime). Then think about the global troubles and disruption caused by psychopathic CEOs, governors, senators, bankers, etc. Think about what happened to MF Global (just one example), where the money just "disappeared" and subsequent investigations went nowhere because the psychopathic politicians whose campaigns were partly funded by these people "couldn't find" the evidence. Think of the British Petroleum reps who were definitely out of step with their actions when they “went the shortcut” and caused a major environmental disaster, all just to increase their immense wealth and power. Psychopaths have an insatiable greed and an insatiable lust for control. Some are more successful than others in meeting this need. Dick Cheney comes off with the murder of millions of people, his ideological (and genetic) siblings of lower rank can only succeed in manipulating and abusing a small number of people.
So is this exercise useful? Did you find the number of people you were asked to find? Did you find more than you were asked to find? Is this an exercise you can send to others to increase global understanding of the destructive principle of psychopathic prescriptions around the globe? The fact of the matter is that not all psychopaths kill people physically, what they can and do is kill your spirit. While most people can imagine that most of the human suffering on our planet may well be the result of the life and work of 360 million genetically abnormal people with no conscience, in all areas of society, how many people will stop to consider the possible consequences of massive negative and “ponderous” the influence of psychopaths on humanity as a whole? As the destructive principles and ideology of psychopaths sinks deeper into the minds of the mass of ordinary people, we see Nature's response to this unbridled suffering in the form of drought, hunger, epidemics, disease and disaster ...?
Is there a connection here?
It's time to start asking questions questions. It's time to stop asking who is right in the global warming debate and start asking why our governments are ignoring the signs of an impending ice age. It's time to stop asking if we need to go to war and start asking who benefits from these wars. It's time to stop asking why these atrocities that we see on television are happening and start realizing that these atrocities in general have one underlying cause: the fact that the topic of psychopathy is almost universally ignored.
This review does not pretend to be the truth of the last resort, it is rather created in order to spur interest in this topic and to question some of the stereotypes that have developed.
It is interesting that many take the story of the destruction of Rome by vandals seriously. It is a myth. First, by the time the vandals arrived, most of the historical monuments fell apart quite independently. The Romans were very practical, and it was not profitable to keep track of ancient monuments. Secondly, during the robbery of Rome by vandals, not a single inhabitant and not a single building was damaged. Mostly because no one resisted them. The vandals just quietly entered the city, took as many valuables as they could carry (including many books, mainly on tactics and strategy), took away a couple of thousand prisoners, and quietly left. The prisoners were kept in good conditions, and then released for a ransom. By the way, the daughter of a noble captive later married the son of the leader who organized the raid. And rumors about the cruelty of the vandals and the destruction of Rome were spread by several robbed nobles. Therefore, when you hear hooligans called vandals, always ask not to offend the vandals. They were quite civilized people.
The first stereotype - "unwashed barbarians"
Very often in the literature, when describing barbarian peoples, the general rudeness of life and complete unsanitary conditions are mentioned. They say that barbarians wash only when they get caught in the rain, etc. In German, one of the synonyms for barbarian literally translates as "unkempt." Which sounded very funny when archaeologists discovered 6 combs in the burial of an ancient German "unkempt".
Also, some historians, narrow specialists on ancient civilizations, and in their wake and popular literature, expose Roman public baths in opposition to the "barbaric" unsanitary conditions. At the same time, without specifying that all these baths were located in elite areas, where most of the population of cities was not allowed by the guards (not to mention the countryside). And also, they do not always remember that the Romans did not know how to make soap. Therefore, in order to wash off the dirt, they smeared themselves with olive oil, and then scraped this oil off themselves with a special stick.
Naturally, from such "enlightenment" many decided that the barbarians did not wash at all. At the same time, both archeology and surviving written sources say the opposite. It is known that the Celts regularly visited the baths, and naturally washed themselves every day (which is understandable). And, which is characteristic, the Celts knew how to make soap, and they used it. Why the Romans, having conquered the Gauls, did not adopt such a simple invention is difficult to explain. Although perhaps they were simply too proud to use the barbarian invention (which for some reason did not prevent them from copying the barbarian weapon).
In another era, other barbarians - namely the Vikings * - in the minds of the Englishmen and Franks robbed by them, were mere savages. Therefore, many modern authors (and behind them - directors and game developers) endow them with truly savage features - they are described as rude uneducated people, respectively unwashed, shaggy and unkempt, dressed in rags, if not in skins ... At the same time, if you read carefully those very English chronicles, where they are called savages, a completely different image emerges. In particular, about the Viking settlers, the chronicler says that they, they say, come in large numbers here, settle down to live according to their alien customs. And they, bastards, knocked out all the beautiful girls of our guys, because, you see, these Vikings go to the bathhouse every other day, comb and trim their beards (according to the context, the British themselves did not do all this. And the Franks, too). If you look into the Scandinavian sagas (in which the Scandinavians describe their daily life fairly reliably), other details are also revealed. For example, that the Scandinavians always washed their hands before eating, which the same British and French did not do for another 3 centuries after the “civilization” of the Vikings.
And besides basic hygiene, barbarian peoples cared about their appearance.
By the way, only in Scandinavia and the Slavs in Europe at that time had normal toilets. And also only they brushed their teeth.
The second stereotype - "barbarians in skins"
Often in the cinema, various barbarian peoples (Gauls, Vikings ...) “dress” in some kind of tattered rough rags, for example, sewn scraps of skins or clothes made of coarse gray fabric. In general, homeless people are homeless. And civilized people there mostly flaunt in white robes, or other luxurious suits. And if, for example, in films about the Romans (see "Julius Caesar and the war with the Gauls") this is explained by the laws of the genre (they are bad guys there), then in films about barbarians it is more than strange. There are also very funny mistakes in this area: while reconstructing a Viking's attire from a plate of helmet decoration (2x2 cm, if not less), it was assumed that he was wearing one “skin” up to mid-thigh. For a long time, both in paintings and in films, they were portrayed in such clothes. Although almost immediately it became clear that this was a mistake - on the plate the Viking was dressed in leather leggings, and a jacket, which, due to the small size of the picture, could not be drawn to scale, and as a result acquired the appearance of a shaggy skin. I wonder how these artists / filmmakers envisioned wearing such clothes in a northern climate?
There is also a tradition, when depicting Viking raids, to dress them in the same rough outfits of monotonous dull colors - to give a savage look. At the same time, archeology and chronicles speak of something else. First, the Scandinavians did not like faded colors. The nature of the north is very monotonous for most of the year, so it is understandable that they strive for rather bright, even motley, colors in their clothes. In addition, tribal signs and charm patterns were always embroidered on clothes. The Scandinavian embroidery of those times is very beautiful. In addition, everyone who could afford it wore jewelry. And as amulets, and as signs of wealth, and just for beauty. Warriors wore jewelry as signs of their victories, and to provoke opponents - the more gold, the more enemies will try to take it away, and accordingly, the more glory a warrior can receive in case of victory. And if in computer games Viking jewelry is depicted as thick and rough, then in reality archaeologists have discovered very elegant works of local craftsmen. It is enough to look at the images of these things to be sure.
Viking clothing was by no means as primitive as it is often depicted. For example, in the sagas, a cloak with sleeves and fasteners along the entire length is mentioned (in other words, a coat), pants with belt loops (almost a modern look, and not tied with a rope as some believe), a dress with a cutout on the chest (neckline) ... And also in Denmark the tomb of an 18-year-old girl was discovered, the mummified remains of which were dressed in a top and a miniskirt. Simply put, their clothes did not strongly resemble those rags that are usually associated with the "dark ages".
Other barbarians, namely the Celts, also cared about their appearance. For example: the Celts are for the most part prone to dark hair, but they consider blond the most beautiful, and thanks to this they became one of the first inventors of hair dye. It is also known that they independently invented cosmetics. So, one Roman poet reproaches his girlfriend for the fact that she, like the barbaric Gauls, uses cosmetics. Naturally, the proud Romans considered it shameful to adopt the customs of some barbarians, but the Romans did not seem to care much. Few details have survived about this, but it is known for sure that the Celtic girls did their own manicure - in the ancient Irish saga, the girl, describing her grief, says “I don’t paint my nails purple”.
The Celts were generally great aesthetes. Even in combat, they considered showiness as important as efficiency. Therefore, many of them went into battle in beautiful, smart clothes, without helmets (so as not to cover their fashionable hairstyle), or in decorative ornamented helmets, and with the same decorative, richly inlaid shields. And the chariots of tribal leaders were often completely covered with gold and silver plates painted with the most skillful intricate pattern.
For some reason, by the end of the Antiquity era, the original Celtic culture was preserved only in Ireland, and partly among other island Celts. Often in articles describing the early Middle Ages, you can read about a poor existence, dirt and disease. And so it was. In western and southern Europe. The extreme Celtic west, Scandinavia and eastern Europe (in the last 2 points there was a very similar culture, so I will not repeat myself), in such descriptions they usually do not take into account. And many, unknowingly, consider these lands savage. 
The third stereotype is “wild / illiterate barbarians”
In literature and cinema, barbarians are often portrayed as savages, living in rough huts and eking out a wretched, primitive existence. It is clear that there is no talk about any kind of education or culture at all. Sometimes the authors emphasize their barbaric "severity" with contempt for scholarship and refined art.
What does history say about this? The authors of that time said the following about the ancient Celts:
“In their speeches, they are laconic and allegorical, they often resort to exaggerations in order to exalt themselves, and to humiliate others, they are used to threatening, boasting and exalting themselves, but they are sharp in mind and tend to learn.”Diodorus Siculus.
“If they are convinced, then they are easily accessible to considerations of benefit, so that they are able to perceive not only education in general, but also science.”Strabo.
“They are said to memorize many verses, and therefore some remain in the Druidic school for twenty years. They even consider it a sin to write these verses, while in almost all other cases, namely in public and private records, they use the Greek alphabet"Caesar about the druids.
So we see that the Celts were not stupid savages at all. Although most of their literature and science (at least the Continental Celts) has been lost, as religious taboos forbade writing them down. Although merchants and the upper classes of society appeared to be literate, science was oral, and passed on by word of mouth for centuries. On the continent, this continuity was destroyed by the Romans along with the Druids. On the British Isles, it was partially preserved until it was finally decided to record it. The amount of this information is simply enormous, given that it was memorized. The surviving examples include many literary works as well as very elaborate statutes. The language of their works is complex and emotional, and the laws are very competently drafted, and take into account many details (although experts note that they are written in a very confusing manner. It is believed that this is the sub-language of the filid caste of lawyers. Also in the literature dedicated to this "language" use it to avoid eavesdropping).
The basis of the Celtic intelligentsia was the Druids. They were mainly recruited among the aristocracy, and underwent special long-term training in the Druidic academies. It is known that the entire aristocracy of the Celts passed at least an elementary druidic education. Filids and bards also studied in special educational institutions. Scientists in the Celtic society were very respected, they were protected by the law, and everywhere they were warmly welcomed. Druids were not only priests, but also teachers, historians. There were druidic communities specializing in economics, medicine, astronomy.
The Celts used ancient writing, but before the adoption of Christianity in Ireland, a purely Celtic alphabet - Ogama - also appeared. Ogamic writing was used mainly for ritual purposes.
Vikings are also often described as uneducated savages attacking enlightened Europe. Sometimes they are even credited with a hatred of literacy. This is despite the fact that Western Europe itself was then uneducated. Despite the fact that its main population is the former Germanic tribes, some of which already had their own runic writing then, with the adoption of the Latin alphabet and a new way of life, their education experienced a decline. Basically only monks were literate, and kings did not even know how to sign.
In Scandinavia, hundreds of funerary runestones of that time were found, as well as many household items and weapons with runic inscriptions. The sagas also mention letters and other records carved on wooden tablets.
The literacy rate among the Vikings was higher than in the Europe they robbed. And they were proud of it! Literacy is one of their most useful skills. In addition, the Vikings were quite curious, and traveling a lot, they brought home information about distant lands and affairs of bygone days. For example about the Trojan War or the past of Rome. And also a lot of scientific knowledge. By the end of the Viking Age, the Scandinavian countries (especially Iceland) had become one of the centers of culture and science. As a very inquisitive tribe, they themselves learned a lot. Especially about such vital things as nautical navigation and medicine. They invented sufficiently accurate instruments for measuring time and latitude (measuring longitude, given the speed of their ships, was unnecessary). On the shores of Norway there is a runestone, the inscription on which says that by sailing from it strictly to the west, you can get to such and such a bay in Greenland. Indeed, that bay is located strictly to the west, with an accuracy of fractions of a degree.
Also, the Scandinavians developed medicine (especially wound healing). The sagas mention dynasties of healers who passed on knowledge from generation to generation and accumulated experience for many years. And the results were very tangible. It is even known about surgical operations, for example, the removal of stones from the abdominal cavity (the patient, which is characteristic, survived).
The story of one farm laborer is also noteworthy. His name was Oddi, he was hired as a fisherman, and in his free time he loved to look at the sky, watch the movement of the sun, moon and stars. For this he was nicknamed the Star Odd. He wrote down his observations, made calculations, compiled tables of the movement of the luminaries, and sold them to the ship's navigators. Some of his notes have survived. Their analysis shows a rather high accuracy and complexity of the calculations. Stellar Oddi is now considered the greatest European astronomer of his time.
Also, the Vikings independently developed a calendar consisting of 365 days, and through many years of observations invented leap years. They compiled very accurate calendars for many years to come, up to several centuries.
Among the Vikings, oratory and, especially, poetry were highly respected. The surviving skaldic verses are quite remarkable. In addition to very complex systems of rhyming and poetic forms, they also used a unique system of consonance. In addition, they loved to use various allegories in poetry - köning. Köning is the substitution of a single word for a phrase, often containing a reference to mythology or history. For example, shields were called "tiles of Valhalla" (Valgala is a banquet hall for dead heroes, the tiles of which were shields). There were also double könings, for example, "bowstring snake" - an arrow, "bowstring arrow thrower" - a warrior. And there were also 6 (!) Multiple könings - “the fire thrower of the witch's blizzard of the moon, the horse of ship sheds”. “The horse of the ship sheds” is the ship, “the moon of the ship” is the shield, “the witch of the shield” is the ax, “the blizzard of the ax” is the battle, “the fire of the battle” is the sword, the “thrower of the sword” is the warrior. All this served as a kind of intellectual game - the listeners had to understand what the author had in mind.
Although the Scandinavian poetry was written down (first on tablets, later on parchment) the best poets memorized everything by heart. Many of these skalds memorized hundreds of their own and others' poems. Some were also famous for their ability to compose poetry, literally speaking in poetry. It was considered very prestigious for anyone to insert into speech a hastily composed witty four lines - visas. The Vikings took poetry very seriously - the verse insult was considered doubly offensive, and the love lyrics could even be considered an attempt at a love spell (although most poets did not care about this prohibition).
So, this stereotype has no basis. Moreover, it was often the other way around.
The fourth stereotype - "barbarians - pitching"
In literature, cinema and games, the stereotype of barbarians as healthy, pumped up bums has taken root. Clumsy, clumsy and extremely inept fighters who rely only on physical strength and reckless pressure. In stories describing a person from our time in the past, either a world reminiscent of the early Middle Ages, often a modern person trained in martial arts, or, for example, a former paratrooper, easily copes with "inept savages." And in the popular scientific literature describing ancient countries, it is often said that the Greeks / Romans, they say, opposed skill to number and brute force. Unfortunately, some of the descendants of those very barbarians also think so. Mainly due to lack of education, or entrenched stereotypes. Such people agree with the widespread opinion, but try to “shield” their ancestors, extolling their heroic power.
So, in the modern view, a barbarian warrior is something extremely huge, with muscles of steel, broad shoulders and a small head. In almost all films and games, the main tactic of the barbarian is to recklessly rush at the enemy with a wild cry, without even thinking about defense. Naturally, there are exceptions, but alas, there are not many of them. This image took root so much that it became a kind of "archetype". Sometimes you can find discussions in which, for example, the archetype of a barbarian is compared with the archetype of a martial artist (usually the so-called "monk"), or the archetype of a swordsman (naturally, these archetypes are also far from reality).
Within the framework of this work, I consider the Viking martial arts. It should be noted that in this case, by martial arts, I mean mainly the art of hand-to-hand combat, which is historically incorrect - fighting without weapons was not considered a full-fledged martial art until the 19th century. But since the ingrained stereotype connects the concept of martial arts with hand-to-hand combat, then we will start with it.
To begin with, consider an episode from the Scandinavian saga ** (The Saga of Erling's Magnus Blue): After the battle, a certain Orm Konungov Brother lay down to rest. There was no lighting in the house, and the surviving enemy warrior hid in the darkness. When Orm lay down, the warrior rushed at him with an ax, intending to chop off his legs. Orm managed to react, he "quickly picked up his legs and threw them over his head, and the ax sank into the planks of the bench and was firmly stuck in them." As you can see, the Vikings were not so clumsy. And this is not surprising - armor in those days was quite expensive, and the Scandinavians were not rich. Most made do with homemade armor, usually sturdy leather jackets, sometimes reinforced with sewn-in plates of bone, horn, and sometimes iron. Only princes and large landowners could afford chain mail. And many of them preferred lighter armor, appreciating mobility. (It should be noted here that before the Viking era, during the "Vendel" era, the Scandinavian rulers wore heavier uniforms, but then the fighting style changed). The weapons they used were also quite light - the famous Viking axes weighed no more than 2 kilograms (which is natural - unlike the giant armor-piercing axes of the knights, the Viking axes did not require such penetrating power). In such conditions agility and dexterity were the key to survival.
Here are some more interesting passages from the sagas:
“There was a man named Tord. He loved to start fistfights with traffickers, and they usually got it from him. And so he agreed with Gunlaug that he would fight with him ... The next morning, when they began to fight, Gunlaug kicked both of Tord's legs, and he fell as if knocked down ”(apparently, not only in the east they knew the“ dragon's tail ”technique). From another saga: “Grettir stood still. Tord would fly at him, but Grettir didn't even budge. Then Grettir took Tord in his arms, grabbed him by the pants, turned him upside down and threw him over himself, so that he crashed on both shoulder blades. Another interesting episode: the hero of the saga is going to fight with a swindler who was engaged in extortion, to intimidate the victims, he copied the external manifestations of "berserker rampage" (for example, he bit his shit, as, according to rumor, berserkers did in a rage), "The berserker sat on a horse, on his head he had a helmet, and the cheeks were not buttoned. He held in front of him a shield with an iron rim, and he looked formidable. He said:
- You will be even more afraid to fight with me if I get angry!
- Let's wait and see - said Grettir.
The berserker howled loudly and, bringing the shield to his mouth, began to bite the edge of the shield and grin fiercely. Grettir rushed forward and, leveling with the berserker's horse, would kick on the bottom of the shield. The shield flew into the berserker's mouth and broke his jaw. Grettir grabbed him by the helmet with his left hand and pulled him off the horse, and with his right at the same time grabbed the sword hanging from his belt and hit the berserker in the neck, so that his head flew off his shoulders. In the sagas, the Vikings often use combat acrobatics: in the "saga of the people from the Sandy Shore", it is said that a man named Steinor saved his friend who slipped on the ice during a battle by running up and throwing his shield on him in order to repel a blow. while with the other hand he chopped off the leg of the opponent who was attacking the friend and at the same moment jumped so that the blow directed at Steinor by the other enemy passed between his legs without causing any harm. In another saga, the Viking jumped, avoiding the blow of the spear, and, before he could land, broke the spear of the enemy with a kick. The Nyala saga speaks of a certain Gunnar, “skilled in battle. He cut in battle with a sword with both hands and at the same time threw spears if he wanted. At the same time, he swung his swords so quickly that it seemed that not two, but three swords were flying in the air. There was no equal to him in archery, and he never knew a miss. Fully armed, he could jump more than his height, and he jumped forward as well as back. " It also tells about the soldiers who jumped over the enemies surrounding them (!).
In their culture, as in many other "barbarian" peoples, due to the surrounding environment, almost all games included an element of military training. Even the simplest ball game. There were also many purely military exercises, for example, "playing with swords" - juggling with three combat knives. The Norwegian king Olaf, son of Trygvi (considered one of the most skillful warriors of his time) could juggle with knives, walking along the oars of his drakar while rowing.
Many other skillful techniques are mentioned in the sagas, for example, throwing two spears at the same time, with the same dexterity. Or catching a thrown spear on the fly and throwing it back at the enemy.
The Slavs had similar customs. But there is less information about our ancestors. Nevertheless, here is an interesting episode from the epic “Ilya of Muromets and Idolische Poganoe”: “The Tatar did not like these speeches, he grabbed a sharp knife, and how he would let them into Ilya; Ilya deviated himself, waved the knife with his right hand - the knife hit the oak door; ... ”. You can often hear the opinion that wall fighting was the basis of the martial art of the Slavs. Based on the analysis of the latter, many argue that the Slavs, for example, did not evade in battle. It should be borne in mind that wall fighting is a ritual imitation of a battle in a tight formation (in which dodging is generally difficult to carry out), intended only for hardening the fighting spirit and cohesion of fighters. In addition, the Slavs did not fight in close formation for a long time. According to the Byzantine sources of the 6th century, the Slavic warriors fought one-on-one better than the Byzantine ones, but were inferior in combat (however, like everyone else). Therefore, the Slavs tried to lure the Byzantines into the forests, hilly or rocky places, where the Byzantine line broke, and then the Slavs fought on their own terms.
What is also interesting, judging by the chronicle material, in Russia practically no punches were used. Instead, they used elbow and palm blows (slaps, slaps). There is no clear explanation for this yet.
Among the Celts, the Irish were famous for the best warriors. Even special martial arts schools are described in the Irish sagas. The Irish warriors practically did not use armor, relying on dexterity and the ability to reflect blows with shield and weapons. By the way, the Irish were among the first in Europe to learn to parry blows. Moreover, their parrying technique was very developed - they describe not a hard block with a shield, but its withdrawal with the edge. Also mentioned is the reflection by the sword of throwing spears. Like the Scandinavians, the Irish describe many "fighting techniques". One of the most notable - running up on a spear stuck in the ground, after which the warrior had to somehow stand on its edge. Tellingly, the greatest warrior of the Irish epic, Cuchulainn, is described as a short lad of medium build. He won thanks to agility, dexterity and skill.
The fifth stereotype - "ruthless barbarians"
Also, the typical image of barbarians is complemented by passages about their cruelty, rudeness and aggressiveness. Here, for example, what they write in Wikipedia about Conan: “He boasts of the bloodlust that he showed in wars, takes revenge on his offenders with extreme cruelty, is not too picky in means, rude, harsh in words, in other words, he is quite reminiscent of historical“ barbarians ” (Vikings, Germans during the collapse of the Roman Empire, etc.) ". Even in decent publications, such statements are found, as a rule, without any arguments, based only on popular opinion.
Barbarians, and in particular the Vikings, are attributed to unmeasured quarrelsomeness. Meanwhile, the Scandinavian sagas and the first codes of their laws (recorded in the Viking Age) paint a completely different picture. So, according to both sources, the most terrible curse they considered was "a woman-like husband." Another terrible insult is niding - "cursed", "accursed". Even modern Scandinavian languages \u200b\u200bare rather poor in curses, and then there were even fewer of them. And this is natural - when for a crooked word you can get an ax on the head, politeness becomes a guarantee of survival. The most worthy response to an insult was considered to be a witty poem (which was briefly mentioned earlier).
They also often talk about the low cost of human life in those days. Murders were really treated more easily then than now. But, nevertheless, not as much as it is often described. In Scandinavia, courts were already beginning to emerge, and therefore they had to answer for the murder. True, there was no system for enforcing the sentence, and therefore the punishments were mainly limited to a fine in favor of the family of the victim, or to declare the criminal “out of law”. This status deprived a person of any legal rights, for example, the right to vote in popular assemblies, as well as any legal protection. That is, just such a person could be killed without any consequences. This status was usually temporary. In Iceland, it was possible to cleanse itself before the deadline by killing three of the same exiles. Thus, crime eliminated itself, and citizens received a good incentive to live in peace.
Naturally, self-defense murder was not punished. Just like killing a person who has done a grievous offense, if the killer could prove it. In cinema and literature, there are cases when an offended Viking immediately rushes to take revenge on the offender. But the sagas say that rash revenge is unworthy of a man (especially since the offended had every right to challenge the offender to a legal duel - holmgang). It is worthy to respond to insults with a cool head, calmly and deliberately. This is, of course, an idealized picture, but this ideal was generally accepted - refusing to fight was not at all considered cowardice (as it is described now). More interestingly, covering up the crime was also considered shameful for the Vikings. According to the then custom, the killer had to immediately report his deed.
Blood feud was an important deterrent. The Scandinavians lived in family communities, a kind of clans. A person was considered primarily as a member of a particular family. Accordingly, responsibility for the actions of each family member fell on everyone. Sane people realized that their loved ones could suffer for their actions. It was believed that it was better to take revenge on the most worthy member of the murderer's family (which the latter, as a rule, was not). Thus, responsibility for their actions was cultivated.
Another "characteristic" of the Vikings - ruthlessness - is also controversial. According to the sagas, for example, when the blood feud reached the extreme - the burning of an enemy's house, the elderly, women and children were allowed to go out. Another interesting example is an archaic custom that was still sometimes practiced during the Viking times: before the battle, the battlefield was fenced off, and the wounded who managed to crawl out of the fence were spared. In general, it is quite often referred to as the wounded enemy was healed by the victors, and later joined them. Contrary to the opinion that in the culture of the Vikings "everything is decided by strength, and there is no place for the weak" (and some literally praise such a way of life), historical documents speak of something else. For example, in Iceland there was a special tax (one of the few that existed there) for the maintenance of widows and orphans.
Although violent massacres were the norm in the Viking raids, including against women, children and the elderly, such acts were never a matter of pride.
The sixth stereotype is “the powerlessness of women.”
A typical image of a Viking woman is a powerless, downtrodden creature playing the role of a servant. In contrast, there are Viking warriors - hefty, pumped up, even rougher than the male Vikings. Like, only such a woman can prove herself in the cruel world of the Vikings. Again, written sources contradict this image. For example, women could inherit property (in Western Europe, for example, they could not), and having inherited, for example, an estate, a woman became a full-fledged mistress, with all the ensuing rights. Sometimes the wife became the mistress even with her husband alive. And not only estates, but also princedoms (!). In such cases, their children received a "patronymic" not from the name of the father, but from the name of the mother (in Iceland, this custom has been preserved). Also, a woman could, if desired, easily divorce her husband (absolute savagery in Europe at that time). At the same time, she received a third of their common property, plus her dowry. By the way, the Scandinavian laws are called as one of the possible reasons for divorce the husband's wearing of a "feminine" shirt with a cutout (however, the husband could at any time demand a divorce if the wife wore pants). As for the female warriors, they did exist. But given the fighting style of the Vikings described above, they differed little from ordinary women.
Interestingly, according to their customs, prior to their official marriage, under the threat of a fine, kissing, dating, and other courtship were prohibited, not to mention anything more. However, this rule did not apply to victims of raids and slaves.
Also interesting is the Scandinavian slavery system. Unlike the "classical" slavery of Egypt, Greece and Rome, "patriarchal" slavery was practiced in Scandinavia (and Russia). At the same time, the slave was not considered cattle, as in classical slavery, but was equated in rights to a minor child. It was believed that such a person is not able to live independently, and therefore is in the care of the owner. The reason for becoming a slave could be captivity (as a manifestation of cowardice unworthy of a free man), or debts (inability to manage the household). Moreover, the responsibility for this offense - the status of a slave - was inherited. According to such views, the slave had the opportunity to be freed by proving his right to freedom. For example, during major wars, slaves were also accepted into the ranks of volunteers, and by killing the enemy they gained freedom. In addition, having worked for his slave, he always received free time, and could, for example, work extra at this time, for money (even from his own master!). Having saved enough money, he could buy himself. And such a system was encouraged - the slave striving for freedom brought much more benefit, and when freed, he often rented land from the former owner, and continued to make a profit. Also, a child from a slave and a free man was born free. However, in some regions, only a child from a slave and a free woman received freedom. In Sweden, the bastard became free in both cases. And in Russia, a slave who gave birth to a master herself became free.
Naturally, the master had the right to do whatever he wanted with the slave, even kill him. But only if it was for what. Otherwise, it significantly damaged his reputation, and in those days, honor was very important. Interestingly, in the least populated places, where both slaves and their masters had to work hard, slaves had much more freedom. For example, in Iceland, slaves were allowed to carry weapons. In one of the sagas, a case is mentioned when the owner asks (!) From his (!) Slave, his (slave!) A spear. Also in Iceland, a slave had the right to kill anyone who encroached on his wife or daughter - a free man had no right to kill in defense of a slave.
* - in this article the Vikings refer to the population of Scandinavia in the Viking Age (8-12 centuries), which is historically incorrect, but in non-professional literature the habit of using the term “Viking” has taken root in this very sense. In general, "Viking" is "not living like everyone else." “Living like everyone else” - this then meant living on a farm, with his family, once a month to visit neighbors, and once every six months to a fair. Well, or living in a town in similar conditions. Vikings are: itinerant traders, settlers, just travelers, mercenaries, pirates, robbers, racketeers ... But that's not the point. The bottom line is that this is a profession. And the same Scandinavians did not consider it national at all. They called the Vikings both the Saxon pirates and the Wends who plundered Denmark.
Bookmark.
Bloodstream
The groove on the blade of the blade (hole), which is mistakenly called a blood drain, is actually dol. It is made so that a sufficiently thick and durable weapon has less weight. It does not promote blood flow.
Killer sharks
Between 1916 and 1969, a total of 32 attacks of the white shark, the largest and most dangerous species, on humans were recorded in the world. 13 of them were fatal, i.e. less than one case per year. If you add other sharks, such as tiger and blue, then the number of victims will increase, but still not enough to compare with the number of people who die each year from attacks of dogs.
Rainy london
In London, 590 millimeters of precipitation falls a year, in Rome 760, in Florence 870, in Milan 1000, and even in Genoa 1100. It can be argued that London is one of the driest cities in Europe.
Arabic numerals were invented by the Arabs
Arabic numerals came to us from India. It's just that the Arabs brought from there this form of writing numbers, which then spread through North Africa and Spain to Europe. The true advantage of Arabic numerals over Roman numerals is not in their writing, but in the positional numeral system, in which the "weight" of a digit is determined by its position. So, 5 in the number 15 means only five, and in the number 2523 - five hundred (after all, 2523 is 2 times a thousand, 5 times a hundred, 2 times ten and 3).
"And yet it turns! .."
Galileo never spoke such words. They are not found either in the protocols of the Inquisition, or in the letters of Galileo, or in any other contemporary written sources. The first mention of these words - in the notorious for its inaccuracies "Literary sources" ("Querelles Litteraires") Abbot Irelli, who seems to have simply invented them.
Indians have red skin, Chinese have yellow
The myth of the "red skin" of the Indians was invented by the Swedish scientist Karl Linnaeus, who in the 18th century divided people into "homo europaens albescens, homo americus rubescens, homo asiaticus fuscus, homo africanus niger" (European white man, American red man, Asian yellow man, African black man), but did not take into account that the red complexion of American Indians is often associated with the color of their war coloration. The natural complexion of the Indians is pale brown. So as not to get up twice: a typical Chinese is not at all yellower than a typical European. For the first time, the mention of yellow skin color appears in the 18th century, when they began to divide humanity into races. At the same time, an intermediate race was required between whites in the north and blacks in the south. It was then that the yellow race was invented, to which the Indians were first ranked, and then, so to speak, the Chinese were also assigned by an official decree. As a rule, the inventors of this classification never saw anyone other than Europeans.
Napoleon's campaign against Russia turned into disaster due to severe frosts
The famous phrase of Napoleon: "Winter defeated us, we became a victim of the Russian climate", but this is nothing more than unwillingness to admit our own mistakes. In fact, the weather during most of the Russian campaign was average - perhaps even warmer than usual. There are eyewitness accounts that say: the average temperature in October, when the French had already begun to retreat to Kiev and Warsaw, were 10, in Revel and Riga - 7 degrees above zero. Even by the end of November, during the famous crossing over the Berezina, the river was not yet frozen. The terrible losses of the French army leaving Russia were caused by bad planning, and the weather had nothing to do with it. Leaving Moscow, the army had stocks of forage for the horses for only one week, so the horses died like flies. Even in November, the temperature in Kiev was still above zero, as there is irrefutable evidence, and the coldest night near Smolensk, when the temperature dropped to minus 8 degrees. Severe frosts did come in Russia, but only in December, a few weeks after Napoleon's army fled the country.
Spiders are insects
It is completely wrong to classify spiders as insects. They belong to the class of arachnids, which differ in many respects from insects: they do not have antennae-"antennas", they have four pairs of legs, and not three, like insects.
"Religion is the opium of the people"
This coined definition belongs not to Marx or Lenin, as everyone thinks, but to the German writer Novalis. "Your so-called religion acts like opium: it lures and dampens pain instead of giving strength," Novalis wrote in 1798. By the way, most of the other "Marxist" sayings also belong to non-Marxists: "The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains" (Jean-Paul Marat), "Workers of all countries, unite!" (Karl Schapper), "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat" (Blanks), "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (Louis Blanc), and so on.
Scalping came from the Indians
The custom of skinning the head as a trophy and a symbol of triumph was already known in antiquity. The Scythians cut the skin from the head of their enemies - Herodotus testifies to this. A similar practice was common among the peoples of Western Siberia and among the ancient Persians. In contrast, the American Indians were not so brutal. Some historians doubt at all that the Indians resorted to scalping before the arrival of the white people. It was whites, and by no means redskins, who began to remove the skin from the head of defeated enemies (after all, in order to receive the assigned prize, one had to present a scalp). At first, scalping was only known in the east of the present United States, in the lower part of the St. Lawrence River and in the Gran Chaco in South America, and from there the phenomenon spread to Central and Northwest America.
You can get tetanus by stepping on a rusty nail with your heel.
Tetanus, or tetanus, is transmitted by the bacteria Clostridih3m Tetani, which reproduces in the intestinal flora of herbivores. With their feces, the bacteria enters the soil. If, of course, the nail was in the manure, and then its point hit the heel, you can get tetanus, but rust has nothing to do with it.
Reading at dusk is bad for your eyes
Nothing like this. This is just as bad for the eyes as, say, photographing in low light - for the camera, that is, nothing. Of course, in order to see the letters in low light, we need to strain our eyes more and the result may be a headache, but this does not harm the eyes.
Shaved hair grows back faster and becomes stiffer and darker
The results of a clinical study on a sample of 1928 show that the hair on the shaved areas of the body is no different from other areas not affected by shaving. The reason for the delusion is optical illusion. The cut tops of hair growing back after shaving at first seem more noticeable, but over time this difference disappears completely. The ancient Scandinavians believed that the nails of the dead continue to grow after death and serve as a building material for Naglfar. Apparently, this gloomy mythological image is deeply embedded in the subconscious of modern Europeans: many still believe that the hair and nails of the deceased grow like living people. And yet, this is not so: the growth of nails and hair requires a constant supply of nutrients and complex mechanisms of hormonal regulation - both are possible only in a living organism.
Vikings wore horned helmets
The delusion arose when the shaman's ritual helmet decorated with horns was found. But the Scandinavian warriors did not wear horns - this form of helmet was unstable and dangerous. Viking helmets were similar to the helmets of Russian knights: domed or round.
32 teeth is the norm
This norm was relevant in Neanderthal times, when the jaws of human ancestors were larger. Now the norm for a person is 28 teeth. The remaining 4 are "wisdom teeth", which usually erupt at the age of 15-20. Often they are "born" already rotten or begin to deteriorate quickly. They often have to be removed.
The reeds rustled
What is usually meant by reeds - a coastal plant with brown "plush" candles - not reeds at all. This is a cattail. A reed is a light-colored plant with panicles at the ends of the stems. Inside the cattail - a spongy-looking "filling", from which a coarse fabric was made - a mat. Reed reeds are hollow and fragile.
The hedgehog eats mushrooms and apples, carrying them on his back
Hedgehogs are predators, their favorite food is frogs, worms, insects and small animals - voles, for example. The hedgehog does not eat apples. And even more so - does not tolerate on its thorns. It's a delusion
Red wine is made from red grapes, white from white
The juice of most grape varieties is light, and if, after crushing the berries, it is separated from the skin and the denser parts of the berry, then the wine obtained from this juice will always be white. Thus, white wine can be obtained from all white and pink grape varieties, as well as from most reds (with the exception of two or three with colored pulp).
I must say right away - not mine, but brazenly communed. Author - Nickel0re (by the way, in his profile there are two posts about the skill of knightly combat, well, you never know ... who will be interested ...), resource - Pikabu, refer to the post.
Too often "historical" channels feed viewers with half-truths or outright lies when it comes to the Middle Ages, in particular about armor, chain mail, weapons, as well as their purpose and strength. I will give as an example 2 videos from which I am still jarred.
"EDkoj932YFo"
Let's analyze this video from the moment of testing swords on leather “armor”. To begin with, no one used leather "armor" as such in the Middle Ages. Boiled in beeswax leather, only occasionally, was the basis for brigandine / lamellar shells, occasionally gloves with steel inserts and bracers. In the absence of money for chain mail or steel, the fighters used hard jackets sewn from several layers of textiles. They were called gambesons.
"Li_yObDjXVQ"
This video tests the resistance of the gambeson to all types of sword strikes. As tests have shown, it is quite capable of protecting against chopping blows, and given the fact that in battle there is a constant movement of two sides, there will be very few stationary targets, and therefore the gambeson will be better to keep the blows.
Let's continue.
Further in the first video, during the test of the bastard's sword for penetration on the bib (which is a tin, and not a real hardened bib, and I will prove it to you later), the presenter turns to the “expert” and says that “the sword did little damage,” to which The expert answers "he did what he was created for." At that moment, my seat reached critical temperatures and I almost melted a battered chair. The bastard sword was created not for making small holes in the tin "armor", but for piercing the vulnerable places (joints) of the armor. The sharp tip freely passed through the rings of chain mail about two centimeters, and then required the application of force to destroy the rings and then kill the enemy.
The test below uses corseque. Using all his strength, Thrand drives the tip of the polearm only 1 cm into the already crumpled bib. Now think about what kind of nonsense the bib is made of in the "historical analysis" if it breaks through with a bastard sword blunt on a log earlier. Most likely the bib is a theatrical props.
"6Fu4LivPsOc"
It's better further, the chestpiece just crumples from the katana. Somewhere in our native mother Earth, when watching these sensational footage, reenactors, boogurt people and members of HEMA cried with horror and pain, and samurai would turn over in their graves if they knew what they were doing with their weapons. I don't even know where to start ... The Katana was a secondary weapon and was intended to be used only on light types of armor and on opponents without armor in general. Everything in this program is so false that even the katana is not authentic. “Why?” - you ask. Yes, because due to the specifics of hardening and the lack of metal in Japan, the back of the sword was much softer than the hardened blade, and if this blow were made using the historically correct katana, the sword would most likely just bend (even when hit this wretched tin).
Now look at the blow with the blade of the sword on the real armor. Did you notice something important? Not even a scratch remained.
"5hlIUrd7d1Q"
(I fully understand that this is a katana strike on an immovable sword, not on armor. The screen is only for visualization purposes.)
Now let's look at another gem of the historical channel.
"-ymBF3nfhCU"
Here the brave guys conduct exclusively thorough tests of chain mail, taking into account all important parameters, such as: strength / hardening of chain mail rings, the type of their connection, the flexibility of the human body, etc. (Sarcasm)
Again, choosing where to start is difficult. everything that you saw with your own eyes, dear readers, is bullshit. First, the chain mail rings are made of mild, non-hardened steel. Secondly, they are trimmed, and not riveted, like a historical-faithful chain mail (this plays an important role in strength, since a trimmed chain mail can be torn by hand. Unfortunately, I did not find a video with a chain mail tearing, I will be glad if someone will help him find in the comments). Thirdly, the chain mail is worn on a wooden stand leaning against a stone, which in no way reflects the equipment of a warrior who wore a gambeson under chain mail and did not stand still waiting for a blow (at the moment, a torso suspended on a rope with armor put on. In this way, the compliance of the human body can be displayed.)
Below I have provided a comparison of the strength of mild steel butted mail versus riveted mail. As you noticed, the first type of chain mail I mentioned does not withstand blows from the word completely.
"xw3lcgIAwLk"
And finally, from 4 minutes a terrible orgy begins (at least for me). The bald brazzers wanting to explain some aspects of the shield fight shows us two gallant friends who seem to have revisited Hollywood films. None of them use their shield as intended and both are wide open for attacks, at such moments I imagine attacks spam in Dark Souls and Skyrim, when the character forgets about the presence of the shield and just waves from left to right. One of them seems so confident in his victory that he thought about Odile's pirouette in "Swan Lake" and decided that he was not a bastard and could do that too, while he opens his back to attack the enemy, who stands rooted to the spot and waits his destiny in the form of a bream with a shield in order to later go to Valhalla.
This is how a round shield should be held, the left side is constantly covered with a shield, and the right side with a sword.
Everything that you know perfectly well, and therefore are not even going to read the post, but still.
Judging by the book by the American author Irving Washington, it was so. Everyone thought the Earth was flat, but Columbus convinced everyone otherwise. In fact, from the 4th century BC. nobody thought that the Earth looks like a flat pancake. Columbus, however, could not prove that the Earth was round, since he himself did not believe in it! He believed that the Earth was pear-shaped. He has never been to America, and only got to the Bahamas, which are exactly pear-shaped.
Even if you believe in higher powers (weakness, especially on Monday mornings), then with a thorough study of the Bible, you cannot find anywhere that Eve ate an apple, and not a pineapple, a banana or even a coconut. It features a humble "fruit". Nobody argues, maybe it was an apple.
Everyone is just sure that Newton uttered a wonderful law after it flew into his tower. And how not to believe - in his essay about Newton, Voltaire himself told about it! And he could find out only from one source who had the information before the publication of the essay - from Newton's sister Catherine Conduit.
Mickey drew Yub Iverks, who was incredibly fast at drawing, and as a cartoonist was invaluable. But when the voice acting appeared - yes, Disney personally began to speak for Mickey.
In 1766, Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote about an event that allegedly happened 25 years earlier. Supposedly, when Marie Antoinette found out that people in the French countryside did not have enough bread, she offered them to eat cakes. The problem is that in those years Maria was 11 years old and still lived in her homeland in Austria.
Van Gogh, who during his life hardly sold one canvas (people of that time understood the quality of his paintings many times better), before committing suicide, he allegedly decided to start with the ear. However, I sawed off not everything, but a tiny piece of the left lobe. What can you not do drunk ...
Many are sure (at the suggestion of school teachers) that the girl has realized the ambitions that arose due to the inferiority complex associated with growth. In fact, his height was 168 cm, which is higher than the average Frenchman of those years.
Sir Walter Reilly is an explorer, ladies' man and one of the most mysterious and mythological figures in English history. In modern portraits, he is painted as an exceptionally handsome man, although no real portraits of him have been found. He was considered a ladies' man, and, allegedly, liked the English Queen Elizabeth I. Is it true that he threw his cloak into a puddle so that the queen could cross it? Not true. It is true that he did not return from a trip to America with the first potatoes and tobacco in English history. Although it is said that Reilly introduced the potato in 1586, the first potato crop was actually harvested in Spain in 1585, after which it quickly spread throughout Europe and even crossed the English Channel. In 1560, tobacco was brought to France by Jean Nicot (nicotine got its name from his surname). So smokers all over the world are wrong to accuse Sir Walter Reilly of spreading a bad habit.
Everyone knows two things about Magellan: that he traveled around the world, and that during this trip he was killed in the Philippines. One excludes the other. In fact, Magellan passed exactly half the way: the journey was completed by Juan Sebastian Elcano, his deputy.
William Shakespeare is known as the greatest playwright in human history. However, most of his plays were not his own creations - rather, creative adaptations of stories, stories and traditions. The play "The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark", according to historians, was based on an ancient Scandinavian tradition.
1,093 patents: Edison is a great inventor. But most of his inventions were made by unknown employees of his laboratory. And besides, a certain Davey Humphrey discovered electric light four decades before Edison was born. His lamp could only burn for 12 hours straight, and Edison only had to find a suitable filament material so that the lamp could burn constantly. Yes, an achievement, but not a discovery.
December 25 - Christmas. But there is no evidence in the Bible or anywhere else that Jesus was born on this particular day. But why was December 25 made Jesus' birthday? Maybe because on this day the Greeks celebrated the day of the god Mitros, born of a virgin, and at the same time it was the Day of the Shepherd?
Everyone knows that George Washington was the first of 43 US presidents. But no! The first was Peyton Randolph, who had been chosen by the revolutionary Congress. His first step in high office was the creation of the Continental Army to defend against British troops and the appointment to the post of commander in chief ... General Washington! Replaced Randolph in 1781 by John Hanson, who sent a congratulatory letter to George Washington after his victory in the Battle of Yorktown and signed "I, John Hancock, President of America." And Washington became the first popularly elected president of the United States - but the fifteenth in a row.